User talk:Shofus

Decibel
I have only just noticed your post on my page because you placed it out of order (the convention on Wikipedia is to place new posts at the bottom of the page) so sorry for the slow reply. You wrote on my page;


 * I made some edits to the dB page based on the "International Standard CEI-IEC-27-3 Letter Symbols to be used in Electrical Engineering: Logarithmic quantities and units", and editorial practices from IEEE. I did not realize the hot debate regarding power vs field quantities. As far as I know, dB is clearly defined as a power level (at least in my sources, c.f. the references in my comments in the talk page).


 * I work with sound levels in the ocean, and the sloppy use of dB causes us a lot of headache, even within the peer review literature. I am more than happy to contribute, but I am not sure how to reach a consensus on this.

First of all, the role of Wikipedia. It is not our place to set or enforce international standards on anything. Nor is it our place to discourage bad practice. The role of an encyclopedia is to inform our readers of what is out there. "Sloppy use" may cause you headaches but that is not going to be fixed on Wikipedia. Your journal may have a standard for use of the dB, but you need to understand that dB is used in many fields and they don't all follow the same practice.

The recognised international standard for units is the SI system. SI have declined to recognise the dB as a unit. Until and unless that happens, you are wasting your breath telling people they are not complying. The unit dBm, for instance, is extremely widely used in the microwave field but would be positively forbidden in SI nomenclature. Some bodies clearly permit dB as something other than a power ratio. The NIST definition of level-of-a-field-quantity is entirely without reference to power. NIST cite IEC 60027-3 as their basis for this (is this a predecessor of CEI-IEC-27-3 ?).

You ask how to reach consensus. On Wikipedia we refer to the sources. If reliable sources tell us that industrial practice is a certain way then that is what we should report. It really does not matter if this practice is against international standards (although that should be reported too). Even if SI decide to define a log unit tomorrow and stamp on all the non-compliant practice, it will still be in Wikipedia because it is of notable historical interest.

I find it laughable that this engineering practice attracts so much criticism from physicists. The SI system was invented for them, but they are the very worst offenders for not sticking to it. Electron-volt, for instance, is seen everywhere. I could write a long list, but I think I have put enough on your talk page for now.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  09:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fisheries acoustics
You have added to the article on fisheries acoustics what appear to be skeleton notes, perhaps as a preliminary to expanding the article. It is great if you are intending to expand the article, and write it properly. However, you might find it is helpful in the early stages to develop the article in your own sandbox. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)