User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2009 May

EL header and commons

"EL header wasn't empty - commons link goes there, according to WP:MOS" - Where in WP:MOS does it say that? I removed the header so as to not leave an obvious place for spammers to post links. Siawase (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea off-hand. It's just that I spend a lot of my edit time over at Commons, usually ending up by adding {{commonscat}} links back on WP. Then I'm always getting picked up for placement of them, which (apparently according to WP:MOS, but I can't remember where) should go under an External links section, creating one as necessary. This often ends up with ugly whitespace, where an article has several thumbnail images (all neatly pushed right according to WP:MOS, even though this is usually ugly).

On the whole though, I think you're right. Why am I bitching about a policy I don't even support? Delete the header! 8-)

Hehe, thank you! I do a lot of spam cleanup in toys articles, and deleting the EL section (when there are no appropriate links) is one of the most efficient ways to get spammers to stop posting links. I've never really ran into problems with this before, but most toy articles are pretty under-watched. I looked through WP:MOS and WP:EL and found nothing about the section being required, but ya never know what might be hiding in some other obscure policy page. ;p Siawase (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this really enough to stop the spammers? I zap enough of the blighters, never thought there was such an easy way to usefully discourage it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It really does help! Sure, it won't stop the really determined clued-in spammers, but most inappropriate external links seem to be of the casual drive-by variety. Adding Template:No more links has also been way more effective than I expected. Siawase (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jet engine performance

Hi Andy. At Talk:Jet engine performance you wrote: When an article is up for AfD is not an appropriate time to delete most of it! This article has never been nominated for AfD. It is true that someone at an IP address added the {{prod}} tag to initiate automatic deletion after five days, but no-one has yet nominated it for AfD.

The prod tag would have caused the entire article to vanish forever, no history, no trace, nothing. What was your reaction to the prod tag? When you reverted my changes you could have reverted to a slightly earlier version that included the prod tag – that would ensure the entire article would vanish forever!

For many, many months Jet engine performance has suffered from no references, no in-line citations, no subject-matter specialist to work on it. Just so much text book extract. Wikipedia is not a text book.

Please have a look at Oh My God.

Please also read carefully all that has been discussed at Talk:Jet engine performance#Deletion.

User:BillCJ has written: One suggestion is to drastically cut the article back to only what can be sourced in the next few days, and then work from the history and add sections as you and others find sources for that info in later weeks. I think that is a good suggestion. What do you think?

You have written: Whining Math is hard and deleting the majority of an article because you don't understand it isn't acceptable. I don’t know who you heard whining that math is hard, but it wasn’t me. I deleted the majority of the article, primarily because that is what had been discussed on the Talk page. (In contrast, you reverted my edits without prior discussion on the Talk page.) I have never written that I don’t understand it. That must have been someone else. I am an aeronautical engineer and I actually have some understanding of most of this stuff, but I recognise that a technical essay cum text book entry like this doesn’t belong in Wikipedia.

Are you volunteering to help save this article from deletion? If so, what do you volunteer to do first? In what area do you propose to contribute? Dolphin51 (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've clearly read too much into your comments. Probably read others too and merged them. Past experience makes me wary when I see "Deletion: This article is at risk of being deleted." on a talk page, then a massive deletion of content. That's an easy, and popular, tactic for some editors to use when they want to devalue an article into a trivial stub so much that they're trying to bias an AfD (take a look at some recent edits by a well-known right-wing WP:POV editor re Central America politics).

This article is very poor at present, but the topic is good and deserves to exist. So where do we go next?

The existing content isn't "bad", so much as utterly out of context with what appears to be a missing annotated image. I suspect {{copyvio}} to be more of an issue there than basic quality - It smells like a textbook paste.

I'd like to see this content deleted gradually, and as it's replaced by something better. I just don't hold with "burn it all and start again" as a way to work when editing. Maybe it's because I'm a software engineer by day - our big buzzword these days is Refactoring (much of it inspired by a chap called Martin Fowler). A key principle with that is to build a test structure first that can measure what it currently does, then to do small, stepwise refinement within this, checking that you don't break things (i.e. lose topic coverage) in progress. Maybe I'm wrong to apply this to encyclopedia authoring, but this whole "wipe it first" approach strikes me as wrong. For one thing, we're all far too busy and the great schemes of good authors do tend to fall by the wayside when reality intrudes into their days (Ill elderly parent - tell me abut it 8-( ). It's easy to delete the old to make way, but will it actually get replaced again?

Secondly, isn't any of this content valuable? Typesetting equations is dull graft, surely we can recycle some of that and save future work? Although "everything is still somewhere in the history", once it goes from the page other editors can't see that it might be there and will tend to do it again from scratch.

As to the pitch level of this - can't we do both? There's nothing wrong with equations next to more readable prose when you know that most of the audience won't understand them. Our task is to offer a comprehensible article as well, not to slavishly replace the mathematical treatment. The art of communicating science well is to get the understandable version over without having to dumb it down as well.

I'm not promising to volunteer for anything here, sorry, but I know I couldn't deliver on it. If I do have any time (which I don't) my backlog at present is around steam engine engineering and my desk and head are full of the refs for that, not gas turbines. I've got to shift some of that before I offer to do anything else anywhere.

As to goals in the end, I'd like to see it address the virtues of centrifugal compressors vs. axial - far from being as clear-cut as many think, especially not after reading P&W's engine handbook for pilots (and guess what P&W make). Tying combustor design evolution in with their emissions as well as simple efficiency would be useful too.

Hi Andy. Thanks for your prompt and courteous response. I understand your frustration at seeing acres of math and technical prose being deleted.

The problem with Jet engine performance, as it was until a day ago, was that all those acres of math and prose were totally, utterly, without reference or in-line citation. Not one attempt at sourcing any of it. This is entirely contrary to WP:V which begins The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Various editors did various things to try to get someone to do something about verifiability but with conspicuous lack of success. That was a year or more ago. Finally, someone prodded the article for automatic deletion after a mere five days.

User:TStein removed the prod but User:BillCJ indicated he would AfD the article to get it removed.

And that is when I volunteered to get involved to rescue the article.

I think the deletion is now secure, the heat has gone from the issue, and I need to move ahead with re-creating and resurrecting as much as I can with the sources available in my local technical library. Cheers. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairbairn steam crane

Hello Andy. I've been reading your Fairbairn steam crane article, and I was wondering if you would object to me splitting the article, so that a specific article can be dedicated to the Bristol crane, that certainly deserves a stand-alone status due to its recognized importance and so that the article is not unbalanced, and permitting the article to be on Fairbairn steam cranes in general.--Aldux (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply later today, when I have a moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brooklands photo archive

I have nominated Brooklands photo archive, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklands photo archive. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Per your request

Re [1]: OK William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you really taken a tongue-in-cheek comment on the ongoing persecution of Peter Damian as a reason to block me as a wikipedia editor? I am amazed, and slightly disgusted, at your behaviour here. Please revert it forthwith, and I'd appreciate an immediate apology. What is the purpose you serve by this, and do you really think that's what your function as an Admin is supposed to be about? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, have you changed your mind? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I posted a comment intended to lightly ridicule the attitude of some admins who are too keen on waving their own power about rather than building the best encyclopedic content that we can and you rose to the bait. That's precisely the sort of action that brings adminship into disrepute and makes WP look ridiculous to the outside world. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Boiler etc

Hi Andy. Thought it polite to let you know I had mentioned your name (favourably!) in comments I have added at the talk pages for Steam Engine and the Trains WikiProject. Following my 'proposed merge' suggestion at Boiler I have canvassed for further opinion (and to see if we can get some more people on board to help edit!) I have no problem with your 'Oppose' comment (in fact I mostly agree) but I am acutely aware that we have an important article in our care which is in dire need of re-work and cannot be ignored. Hopefully this will do the trick.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed it, thanks for your comments re other articles 8-) Comments back on that page, so they're visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Credit where it's due. Much as I still think you're the best person (of the current active editors at the moment) to sort out the higher-level boiler articles I completely understand your position and respect your right to not take on such a big job! The comments were hopefully worded in such a way that it didn't seem like I was criticizing you for not taking it on. I haven't read your comments yet (have two days' watchlist backlog to catch up first) but I trust that your above comment suggests I got it about right.

EdJogg (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mostly I don't want to work on Boiler yet, as there are a number of subsidiary articles I'd much rather get out of the way first, so that they're referenceable: Early boilers (haystacks, waggons etc.), boiler stays, boiler explosions, locomotive boiler (that's going to be massive!), a decent historical addition to safety valves, maybe superheaters. I'm still horribly short of working time (elderly Dad) and I also have two chunky great source books to read through first (One is Cook's history of Stanier boilers, published by the RCTS - looks like an excellent read, and they have it for a bargain clearance price too).

Then we have rubbish like that "choo choo" comment and getting slapped with a 48 hour block for having the temerity to question some admin behaviour. To be honest, I do wonder why it's worth bothering with this site at all? I'm only doing it because of feedback from outside Wikipedia (mostly the schools) who appreciate having the resource available, it's certainly not because of the happy working atmosphere or the attitude of the wikicultists. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I will start thinking about the article structures, as you suggest. My main concern is not knowing enough about the subject, but I will try to get some ideas together to get us started. Don't hold your breath, though, as it may be some time before anything gets into print. Hopefully in the meantime some others will come along to join in.

As for that admin stuff -- serious sense-of-humour failure, or what? Thankfully I've mostly avoided such attention, and the few incidents I have witnessed have very much encouraged me to keep my head below the parapet...

EdJogg (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Brooklands photo archive

Template:Brooklands photo archive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis Napoles

Just so you know, I have mentioned you ---> Here.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, commented.

AfD Nomination of Shard_(database_architecture)

Numerous authorities have spoken out against this term, including Theo Schlossnagle[2] Sharding is a fadish term for an old practice, and as such, the entry for sharding should redirect to horizontal partitioning. This article gives an example of horizontal partitioning, says that sharding is much more difficult, but doesn't explain how sharding is different from horizontal partitioning or an example of sharding. Of course it can't, because there is no difference.

By the way, since you disagree with my solution to the problem and undid the nomination, the onus is on you, not me, to fix the problem by correcting the article since you believe it should be kept:

"If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page."

cswpride (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I find your argument confused. Are you suggesting deletion of this article and topic as non-notable? Your suggestion to redir to horizontal partitioning instead suggests that. However you then cite supporting evidence that ridicules sharding as a database concept, whilst recognising that it's a currently high-profile and indeed fashionable term. Now in Wikipedia terms, that means it's notable. Doesn't mean that it's right, but it does mean an encyclopedia ought to discuss it, if only to point out its misleading nature (we list sasquatch sightings too).

Secondly you claim the article (a referenced stub) is too trivial and should be replaced by a redirect - except that the redirect target has even less content, and is unreferenced.

Finally, the reference you cite is just some random geek's personal bloggage (that SIA book is so 1990s!), it's two years old and he totally fails to get the point about sharding in that post.

Finally, finally, please don't confuse prod and AfD. It just makes mopwork for people who'd rather be writing content. If there is an AfD in circulation for this, please at least put the right templates in place so that it can be found, or else it'll only have to be dragged through DRV again afterwards because this sort of "hidden AfD" as a way to avoid other editors discussing it isn't an acceptable way to go about deletion. 8-(

Overall of course I agree with you. This article doesn't make the shard / horizontal partitioning distinction clear. So if that's the problem, why not either fix it, ask other people to fix the article / explain it to you so that you can fix the article? Calling for deletion instead is ridiculous, and quite honestly I've got better things to spend my time worrying about. 8-(

The very brief handwaving version: Horizontal partitioning splits one or more tables by row, all within a single instance of a schema and a database server. Sharding goes beyond this: it partitions the problematic table in just the same way, but it does this across potentially multiple instances of the schema, with the other tables being replicated_(sic) into those schemas en masse. This makes replication across multiple servers easy (simple horizontal partitioning can't). This is also why sharding is related to a shared nothing architecture - once shared, each shard can live in a totally separate schema instance / physical database server / continent. Unlike simple horizontal partitioning of a single table, there's no ongoing need to retain shared access (from between shards) to the other unpartitioned tables.
Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)