Talk:Siletzia

Recent work (2019)

@Psantora: re your recent edits:

• What is the point of converting space-dash combinations to nbsp-dash?
• Have you considered whether you might be over-linking a tiny bit? Not that I am so particular about this generally, but others are, and I'd rather avoid any counter-editing that might introduce errors.
• I would suggest reading the text more closely when considering whether something should be wikilinked. E.g.: Grays River (Washington) – the river – is not "now considered post-Siletzian." What this sentence (end of the first caption) is about is two volcanic formations, which are named "Grays River" and "Tillamook". I wouldn't quibble if you wanted to add a redundant "Volcanics", but the wikilink should go. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi J. Johnson, my apologies if I have made any errors. I see that you have spent a lot of time on this (extremely well done) article. I am only trying to improve it. In order:

• Re: space-dash vs nbsp-dash; see MOS:DASH (specifically MOS:DASH#Punctuating a sentence (em or en dashes)) Ideally, use a non-breaking space before the en dash, which prevents the en dash from occurring at the beginning of a line. It certainly isn't required, but I think it makes for cleaner formatting. Would you prefer to use one of the {{spaced ndash}}/{{snd}} templates instead? That may be a better long-term approach.
• Re: overlinking; what links do you mean? (I know, I added a bunch...) If you mean in the prose, then maybe as I do have a tendency to link maybe a little more than needed. However, this is a very deep article and some terms may be hard for the average, general reader to understand. Ideally the article's prose would explain everything necessary for the average reader, but adding appropriate links can be helpful as well. From WP:OVERLINK: ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from is the main thrust and I think that is what I was trying to do. If there are specific links you deserve particular discussion (or reversions), by all means do go ahead (with either action).
  However, if you mean in the references, then I don't think I am. Though I understand there may be some general disagreement on that point.
• Re: the link in the image caption; my mistake. Adding "Volcanics" would probably help make the sentence clearer and distiguish from any possible confusion with the river, even if it can be seen as a bit redundant. I can self-revert if you would prefer.

Anyway, again, my apologies if I made any mistakes here. I'm just trying to do what little I can to impove the article. Thanks for reaching out to discuss here on the talk page. Please do let me know if there is anything else to discuss. - Paul^T+/_C 22:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was any concern with en-dashes at the beginning of a line, but then it's been awhile since I perused MOS:DASH. I tend to use spaced dashes relatively often, so you may have a fair amount of work just from me. But I would not want to see {{snd}} – that amounts to significant clutter in the wikitext.

As I said, I am not too fussy about linking per se. (Wikilinking every cite of a journal seems excessive to me, but not something I have any time for.) But that Grays River link should be fixed. If you want, perhaps do a S&R on "GSA Bulletin"; that should be spelled out. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Re your last but one edit: negative on using "named-refs". There are good reasons for not having "duplicate" ("near" or otherwise) full citations, but no need for making short-cites into named-refs, and reasons not to. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Reverted. (I should note that there are a bunch of possible combinations like that (beyond the single one that I changed) with identical short references, but I'm fine with leaving it as-is.) - Paul^T+/_C 16:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. There's much work needed to reform the practice of citation, and named-refs being just one small piece it's going to take a long while to bring everyone around. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"cubic" units

Is there a specific preference for "km³" over "cubic km" or vice versa? I see that both are used interchangably throughout the article. I'm not aware of any specific MOS guideline/policy on this, but I think regardless of which is preferred I think there should be consistency unless there is a good reason not to. My preference is for "³" instead of spelling out "cubic" but, I can easily be convinced. - Paul^T+/_C 12:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I think the "km³" style is more common in the sciences (and especially engineering!), which is probably where I have sucked it in from. But I also have a faint (quite long ago) memory of the first time I came across that, and had to stop and consider just it meant. In general (without looking at specifics) I'd say that "cubic" is less baffling, and more appropriate for a general audience. Except, of course, for equations, but I don't recall we have any here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... it seems neither of us have a strong preference, so I went hunting in the MOS to find the guideline; MOS:UNITSYMBOLS states a bunch of conflicting items:

Format exponents using <sup>, not special characters.

For areas or volumes only, square or cubic may be used (before the unit being modified).

sq or cu may be used with US customary or imperial units, but not with SI units.

cubic centimetre | cm³

cubic foot | cu ft

But, barring specific guidance, it defers to the SI Brochure:

The SI Brochure should be consulted for guidance on use of other SI and non-SI units.

Which uses m³:

volume | V | cubic metre | m³

Perhaps we should treat it like any other abbreviation? Spell it out fully with a parenthesis for the abbreviation on first use "cubic kilometers (km³)" and then use "km³" on every use thereafter. What do you think? - Paul^T+/_C 01:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Hmm, that's an interesting idea. I feel somewhat inclined to using "cubic" as the more familiar usage. But your idea would educate the readers. I think I like it, but let me mull it over for several days. By the way, thanks for digging out those details. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)