User talk:Hankwang/Archive 2007

CMRR

[1] Why 1/2 A_s instead of just A_s? — Omegatron 15:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what I understood from the -- somewhat obscure -- explanation that was originally on the page: As is the amplification factor for a voltage Vsin that is on both inputs. So if V+ = V- = Vs, then Vs = (V+ + V-)/2. It could be that the original definition was wrong, I didn't check that. I agree that the equation looks kind of asymmetric with the factor 1/2. It would make 6 dB difference (on typically 90 dB) if you leave out the factor 1/2. Han-Kwang 18:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It depends on the circuit model you are using. [2] [3] — Omegatron 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicken (food) article

On your user page, it says your interests include adding nutritional information to food articles. The chicken (food) article does include nutritional facts on a broiler chicken with skin, it'd be excellent if the article would address the nutrition of skinless chicken breast and perhaps if there's any difference nutritionally between white meat and dark meat. Anyway, just thought it'd suggest it as a possible project; I'd appreciate it. Thanks.--Grendlefuzz 10:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm rather busy these days, which means that I have no time for intensive wikipedia editing (and watchlist monitoring). So far I haven't received a lot of feedback on these templates, but I certainly have no problem if you make a WP project out of it. I've mainly added data on vegetables and fruits because meats and processed products are too inconsistent. For example, on the beef page you would need separate tables for all different parts of the cow, which would clog up the page too much. But if you find a way of presenting data that won't cause controversies I'd say go for it. Most data comes from the USDA nutrient database. Han-Kwang 15:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

MIIPS

Thank you very much for your comments. As most others, I started to use Wikipedia so frequently, then, I think that I should share with others the knowledge I know. That's the point of my starting with MIIPS. It is an exciting technology to further push the power of ultrashort pulse to application through pulse characterization and phase modulation.Xipeng 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yerba Maté

The New Oxford American Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary all spell it yerba maté with an accent. You can check them all if you wish. This spelling is even stated in the Wikipedia article. Hey, I don't like it either. I speak Spanish natively and find it totally silly, but that's the way things are and our "duty" is to inform what's documented. —☆ CieloEstrellado 11:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Laser

Sorry, I didn't notice you had re-written the intro. I saw the previous user's vandalism, and reverted to the last version I could recongnize as familiar; unfortunatly, I did not notice it was not the vandal who had changed the text, rathern than you. My apologies. · AO ^Talk 17:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Svenska?

Hej, var bara tvungen att fråga, varför kan du svenska? :) Jack Daw 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jag jobbade på Lunds Universitet några år. :-) (och jag har också varit körledare till en svensk kör här i Nederländerna en stund, när deras dirigent hade uppsagt sig. Men jag tror inte att det är typiskt. Detta för att svara på din fråga på Talk:Conducting. :) Han-Kwang 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: your recent comment at Talk:Laser

I'm putting this on your Talk page because its just nitpicking, and not relevant to the discussion going on there. You wrote "Also in telecom, lasers have a fairly large bandwidth because they are pulsed lasers." Compared to other lasers, semiconductor lasers might be fairly broadband, but that's as much because of the short cavity as the modulated) operation. And in telecom applications its definitely preferred to have a narrow laser linewidth, to maximize the achievable fiber bandwidth. I thought for long distance systems, they're usually CW (with an external modulator) for that reason; or is that all out-of-date information and the modulation itself is nowadays enought to make the linewidth "broad" by some definition? -- The Photon 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A friend of mine has been working in optical communications research, and explained his work to me, but I'm not an expert myself and it was a while ago. Now that I'm thinking of it, I believe you're right and it was rather multiple narrowband lasers which drive the same fiber. But along the fiber, optical amplifiers (which amplify by stimulated emission) can be used to amplify the whole bandwidth in a single gain medium. Han-Kwang 07:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

FASOR

Greetings. I want to get your opinion on FASOR (laser physics) since you have been involved with it a bit. As I posted on the talk page, I don't think this is even a real legitimate term. There is only one reference to FASOR as a term that I can find, and it is a conference paper. I certainly don't think that it is notable as a term. I mean, lasers generated by diference frequency aren't called FSSORs are they? I am just not sure I am buying the FASOR thing. Let me know what you think! --Chuck Sirloin 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(crossposted to article talk page) The description makes sense, but I didn't consider notability. I created this article because I thought the elaborate descriptions with all articles that included Image:Starfield Optical Range - sodium laser.jpg and in laser were not in place there. I believe the image description originally stated that it was a dye laser, which turned out to be wrong. I think Deglr6328 (talk · contribs) digged up the information, as in this edit. Maybe Deglr6328 knows more. If you are right, it might be more appropriate to put it at the image description, or maybe at the starfire Optical Range page. Han-Kwang 20:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You were there, only you can understand it better

If there is anybody who can understand half of what I went through with BiggyP and Voy7, that's you. I'd like to invite you to read this at the Community Sanction Noticbeboard [4]. I thank you for your time.Jrod2 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at it, although I didn't dig up all discussions. What I saw were pretty heated discussions. In any case, BiggyP and sockpuppets are all blocked forever. Certainly I can understand very well how angry the attacks made you, but if you find yourself in such a situation again, it's beter if you take a deep breath and try to compose a diplomatic answer rather than trying to retaliate. When I read back a dialogue on a talk page, I tend not to take the party that is screaming and behaving very emotionally very seriously. Han-Kwang 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Nice that you replied and you are doing the rounds! Thanks for the advise, the problem with Biggy P was that, he was slandering and smearing a living person's good name and thus, I was forced to confront him. He made a choice to destroy me, so I just defended myself. In the end, Justice does prevail sometimes.Jrod2 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt

I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it (since the discussion has happened so many times), but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them). There is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 00:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Canvassing. I feel tempted to vote for yogurt just to discourage spam-like behavior. Han-Kwang 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Dietary reference intake merge

Hello, I think you made two mistakes in the merge. First, you only waited two days for comments, which I think is too short, and second, you merged a large article with a long history into a stub by copy/paste. In such cases an administrator should do a page merge that actually preserves the page history. I think you should revert your actions and do it again following the appropriate procedure. Han-Kwang 07:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I am an administator, and I can tell you that it is not possible to merge two articles with existing text by doing a page move. A cut-and-paste or cut-and-rewrite is necessary, though for copyright reasons you should note the from/to article in your edit summary, which I did. There were already comments on Talk:Reference Daily Intake in support of a merger in 2006, so I assumed that this merge was not controversial. Do you have an actual objection to the merger? -- Beland 07:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was thinking of Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves, but this is apparently the conventional procedure for merging. Regarding support: the discussion you're referring to was about Daily Values, not Dietary reference intake. I agree that there was a lot of overlap between the articles, but didn't see a discussion about which term was the appropriate article title. For now, it's best to leave it alone unless someone else has more to say about it. Han-Kwang 08:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Photon-in-photon-out Optical axis done TDLAS Laser science Omega-6 fatty acid Wavelength-division multiplexing Filament propagation Laser acronyms Phaseolus Polychromator Rosewater Sultana (grape) Incandescence Cowpea Excited state Cardioversion huh? Emission spectroscopy Grape juice Cavity magnetron

Cleanup Colors of chemicals FNIR Nuclear physics Merge Absorption spectroscopy Thin-film optics Optical coating Add Sources Fraunhofer lines Chirp Interstellar reddening Wikify Sphynx (cat) Spectrum analyzer done Cutoff frequency done Expand Monounsaturated fat Fabry-Pérot interferometer done Terahertz time domain spectroscopy done

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

EUR/USD/JPY/GBP chart

There is a request at talk:Euro for the exchange rate chart to be updated as it is 8 months out of date. I think that you did it last? If so, care to move it on? --Red King 19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, see more comments on Talk:Euro. Han-Kwang 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:IEC60825 MPE J nm.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:IEC 80625 MPE J nm.png. The copy called Image:IEC 80625 MPE J nm.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Temperature Sensor using NE555 and Parallel Port

Dear Wikipedia. I think you may include

• Temperature Sensor using NE555 and Parallel Port

as a valida link because it contains useful information about the subject.

Yours Juan Carlos.

200.58.174.51 (talk · contribs) 14 Aug 2007

Useful or not, you seem to be affiliated with the website, as usual when someone's first edits on Wikipedia consist of nothing else but adding external links to a single website. As you can read on WP:EL, inserting links you're affiliated with is not allowed. But you can propose the link on the Talk page of an article and let others decide whether they add anything to the article. Han-Kwang (T) 06:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links Question

Thank you for writing a note on my account explaining the guidelines for attaching external links on Wikipedia. I’m new to this, so I appreciate your feedback.

I see that you removed my external links to relative and informative interviews with Rose Levy Beranbaum and Chuck Williams. These interviews provide a unique resource beyond what the article already contained, and did not include any product references. May I ask why those links were removed from those pages?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsbn4 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 August 2007

I noticed one of your edits where you added an external link. As I usually do in such cases, I checked your contribution list and noticed that nearly all your edits consisted of adding external links. In such cases, I remove all links that the editor has made, and leave a message on the editor's talk page. And that is exactly what I did here, because at least 9 out of 10 times it means that the editor either owns the website or is a contractor who builds websites. Maybe that is not the case with the kuhnrikon.com links that you added, but it would still be a boundary case. See WP:EL: Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. Note that it says "sites", not "pages". However, in the case of the interviews, you could consider adding content to the article about these persons, citing the interview web pages as a source. For example something like:

According to helself, Beranbaum was influenced by Cecily Brownstone blah blah to start a career in cooking.[http://www.blah.com/interview/blah]

Han-Kwang (T) 16:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sun

The sun is not travelling through whatever you said —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.161.6 (talk) 19:29:29, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Sun. Han-Kwang (T) 19:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical light association

Ok, I am green to wiki, but why did you cut all my stuff out? The medical light association is not a for profit site the video clips are credible doctors and scientists from around the world. The MLA links I posted are not a promotion for a product or service, it is free information like the wiki, so what is going on?

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdebow (talk • contribs) 08:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You might consider reading the warnings on your talk page, for example Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated,. Han-Kwang (t) 20:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In the holier than thou name of Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading free images/media such as Image:Hubbert peak oil plot.svg to Wikipedia! As you may know, there is another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view your previous uploads). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!Richard001 10:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your SI template

Hankwang: Please explain your motives with the new SI table you've added to three articles. Earlier, you made your best case for deleting SI tables (See discussion on Kelvin talk page, here). Now you seem to be embracing them. Why? Also, I don’t see the value of a replacing a pre-existing, arguably more attractive table with a template-based one. It seems to me that a template is a tool to expediently create new tables that one may or may not want to use. But once a table is already there, why replace it with a template-based one(?); especially when someone can always come along later and nominate the template for deletion, as you did earlier. How can anyone have such a dramatic, 180° change of heart? Please explain. Greg L (my talk) 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion on Template talk:SI multiples Han-Kwang (t) 09:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion style

About one phrase you left on various talk pages (including mine): How can anyone have such a dramatic, 180° change of heart? -- maybe you are assuming too much about peoples (hidden) motives. From the tone of your earlier comments, it appears to me that you saw the nomination for deletion of Template:SI multiples almost as a personal attack, while I was merely expressing my doubt that it served a purpose. I did explain on Talk:Kelvin#SI prefixed forms of kelvin that I wanted to see a consensus about whether to keep these tables in various articles, and there was clearly no consensus for deletion. For me it is not a "dramatic change of heart"; I don't think it would be good if I became very emotional about minor disputes. I don't know you personally, but from the way you respond to me and to others on various talk pages I have the impression that you do often get more upset than necessary. Maybe you are never upset at all, but then be aware that your writing style could give a false impression. Han-Kwang (t) 10:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am not upset. Nor did I see your nomination for the SI template as a "personal attack". Not in the least. I don't even like the SI templates since they generate inferior-looking tables. I saw your nomination to delete the SI table template for what it was: a means towards deleting the table via proxy. First, you deleted an SI table, then, when I restored it, you tried to delete the template that made it. All this is abundantly recorded in Wikipedia's history. Am I missing anything here? I don't think so. Notwithstanding the general rule that editors should embrace Wikipedia's wholesome, politically correct notion of "assuming good faith with other’s actions", no one has to suspend common sense. Your prior writings and actions would make your intentions abundantly clear. So don't try to hide behind the apron strings of my "discussion style". That is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullionium and I'll have none of it. Greg L (my talk) 17:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that I am spending half an hour debugging a template with parser functions with the sole purpose of then sneakily proposing the template for deletion again? If I once disagreed with you I cannot change my mind to actually agree with you? By the way, I only deleted the prefixes marked as "non-common" as you would have seen by checking the history.[5]

I tried to separate the issue about the SI template from my opinion about your discussion style, which this is about. As an example, this phrase: of you: That is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullionium. I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL. I have a fairly thick skin, but I don't think this type of remarks help cooperation. Han-Kwang (t) 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Fine. I'll take you at your word: After you deleted the SI table, after you spent much time arguing your case for why they add no value to articles and are redundant, and after you then resorted to trying to delete all SI tables via proxy by trying to delete the template underlying it, you've now had a total, 180° change of heart and now see value in tables of SI values. But “pardon me all over” if I keep one eye open on this. Again, the Wikipedia policy of "assuming good faith” doesn’t require that people suspend common sense.

  I see no use whatsoever in deleting tables that have been optimized for a particular article with a flawed, fits-all solution. For some wild reason that's beyond all comprehension, people keep on replacing the original syntax-created table with the template-based version even though the template-based version’s column headings are swapped! What sort of reason for swapping a really nice, hand-tuned table with a template-based table can there possibly be that would induce people to overlook a gigantic flaw like screwed up column headings and go ahead and swap the table anyway??? As if the Wikipedia method for making the table is somehow more important than the end result. It reminds me of a dispute some Star Trek fans had here on the Wikipedia dispute resolution forums. They were arguing over an article on the planet classifications (“class M planet” stuff). OMG. What is it about Star Trek and Wikipedia that affects people's behavior this way?

  You've created a template. Fine. Let people use it to simplify the creation of new tables (after the column headings have been fixed). But why do you feel the need to replace a table that's already in an article with some fits-all solution? I want a good answer to this question. Even if you want to keep the SI tables in the Kilogram, Metre, and Kelvin articles, anyone else can come along later and delete the template underlying them. The existing syntax-created tables circumvent this possibility and look better to boot. Greg L (my talk) 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. Please judge edits on their own merits and not on assumptions about hidden motives. I think that has been told to you before.

  2. Your technical complaints have been fixed now. All articles using if we are going to have this table, then it should have a uniform layout across all articles, and preferably the best possible layout. So if you think the layout can be improved, please modify the template so that all articles using it will benefit from it. And please place your technical comments on the template talk page rather than here.

  3. On the deletion discussion, the original author said: Bolding for the more common multiples is a good idea, but should probably be handled by adding some parameters to this template rather than subst'ing the table.

  4. Re It reminds me of a dispute some Star Trek...: that's funny that you mention this, because to me it is obvious that you are the unreasonable person here.

  5. Re anyone else can come along later and delete the template - that holds for any template whatsoever and is not a valid reason to not use a template.

  Han-Kwang (t) 11:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• As I wrote on the Kilogram talk page, I am truly impressed with your new template. It lends credence that your motives are as you state they are. But you didn't yet answer my question: What are the virtues of replacing an already-existing table with a template-generated one? Why bother? What’s the advantage? Greg L (my talk) 16:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

  Two reasons: 1. Any new improvements will benefit all articles rather than just one. 2. Less clutter in the wiki-markup of the articles. Han-Kwang (t) 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

TNC

Thanks for helping out with the Threaded Neill-Concelman connector move! KMS 12:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram

A couple things. First off, WP:MULTI is not for personal disputes on user talk pages to be brought onto an article talk page. Beyond that, his posting of my comments on the talk page without attribution in the history does actually constitute a GFDL vio. More importantly though, it's extremely rude. He's actually himself violating WP:MULTI in that he's taking the conversation which until that point had solely taken place on my user talk page, and copying it to other places, including his own talk page, the article talk page, and another admin's talk page. Greg L has severe ownership problems with that article (kilogram), and is repeatedly trying to include a fair-use image that does not meet our non-free content criteria for that page (it is fine on watt balance. He's been told by myself, and he's also been told on WP:FUR that the image is not acceptable. So he resorts to logging out and using an IP address to add the image in. Aside from the massive incivility issues that he has, simply reverting to reinsert a fair use image where it does not belong is vandalism, and is not tolerated. I realize the situation may have looked strange to an outside observer, but that's what's going on at Kilogram.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand your point now, but as I just wrote on your talk page I still think answering rudeness with rudeness isn't the right way to go, if only for the sake of the outside observer Han-Kwang (t) 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Correcting a wrong

Han-Kwang: Thank you for the above effort and for the other half of the same discussion here on Swatjester’s talk page. Please see User_talk:207.190.198.130. A wrong needs to be corrected. I might have pointed this out to Swatjester myself but that runs the risk of hardening his position out of the gate; there seems to be no perfect way to handle this. But given your apparent philosophy and SOP on handling issues, I thought I'd ask you. Greg L (my talk) 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Eehm, exactly what are you asking me? Han-Kwang (t) 07:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping you would simply unblock 207.190.198.130 (preferably), or (alternatively) ask Swatjester to unblock the guy. He apparently edits out of a hospital at work and that’s why he wants to work anonymously. It also explains why I.P. traces I’ve done in the past coincidentally trace to the same general area: one for his work and one for his home. I’ve updated my post there on that page to better establish that 207.190.198.130 and I are obviously not the same person; something that seems to be the basic reason for blocking that guy. Would you propose that I simply ask Swatjester? Greg L (my talk) 14:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The block was only 48 hours, so he's been unblocked for some time now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Very good. Thanks. Greg L (my talk) 21:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Case closed, I guess? I'm not an admin btw. Han-Kwang (t) 15:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Interest

I am interested in your qualifications. Please elaborate. Alexander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander1919 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a physicist, ultrafast lasers. I'm not much into electronics, if you wonder about my edits to supercapacitor, but I do know most Wikipedia policies pretty well (among others regarding external links). Han-Kwang (t) 08:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

SI template tweak?

Hankwang: Regarding the SI multiples template, I’m wondering if you could make a small modification to the 10^–6 (micro) entry. Unicode μ produces the Greek “mu” symbol (“μ”). This is the symbol the SI multiples template currently uses. However, Unicode µ is the special “micro” symbol (shown here: “µ”) and was specifically intended for this purpose. This is the symbol used in the table in Wikipedia’s own Micro- article. Can you modify the SI multiples template so it uses the same micro symbol? Greg L (my talk) 06:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I fully retract my doubts (expressed above) about your motives for making the SI template. I regret having made them and apologize for doing so. I did a double-take after scanning through the correspondence here and realized that the Hankwang who 1) took the time to make helpful suggestions to Swatjester, is the very same person who 2) made the very nice SI multiples template for making the good-looking templates currently featured on Wikipedia! Thanks for your efforts. Greg L (my talk) 06:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Done (μ -> µ). Are you sure that this is supported by browsers at least as widely as the Greek letter? Han-Kwang (t) 09:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we’ll find out for sure soon enough but I don’t anticipate any problems. It’s long been sorta automatic for me. I edit Wikipedia using a Mac. When I type option-m, it generates the micro (µ) character, not mu. I’ve always done it this way (it’s the fastest way to edit by far) and have never received any negative feedback regarding any articles I’ve written or edited. The entire Kilogram article has long had all instances of µg using the micro symbol by default because of this practice. My old hand-generated SI table uses the micro character. I guess most everyone else just uses the Insert>Greek pallete and clicks on the mu character, which means you get (here… I’ll select it)… μ. However, I’ve never done it this way. By the way, although it will display “mu-like” in the editing window, you can simply copy the preview’s rendering of the micro symbol, or copy this one > µ < and paste it into the template if you don’t want to look at the &#x00B5; code. Cheers! And, again, thanks. Greg L (my talk) 06:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, on my browser the new character looks better indeed. I prefer the & markup since I tend to get charset conversion problems when I copy/paste from a text editor (especially when I was debugging the template). At least, μ (Greek) is better than using symbol font "m"...

Symbol font and mu

Yes, I agree it “is better than using symbol font.” Regarding the Symbol font, the table on this Micro-g LaCoste Web site under the Accuracy column is supposed to show µGal, not mGal. If you look at the page’s code, you will see they specified the Symbol font when displaying the “m” character. If Symbol isn’t available or doesn’t work (like on Mac OS X-based computers), then I see “mGal”. It sounds like you may be on a PC and know you have Symbol installed. So I imagine you see µGal. This technique (specifying Symbol) is no longer proper for Web work. According to HTML version 4.0, the proper way to encode Greek symbols is to use Unicode—like we’re doing here—because all proper Unicode fonts include the Greek characters. Greg L (my talk) 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that a Mac doesn't have Symbol installed - the Mac Classic around 1988 already had it. But it seems that modern systems (mine is Linux), the Symbol font has a unicode mapping; see here: Code: "m &mu; &#x00B5;"- Default font "m μ µ" - Symbol: "m μ µ", non-existant font: m μ µ". The last one appears the same as in the default font, and the Symbol version is clearly different (not nice on my screen with different letter heights). I'll drop a note on Symbol (typeface), because it doesn't mention this encoding. Han-Kwang (t) 12:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish someone would explain Symbol on OS X. I've used Macs since System 4.1 / Finder 5.5 and know for sure that Symbol is installed. MS Word uses it but Apple’s apps—like Safari—don’t work with it. I've long suspected that either 1) Apple deliberately crippled its support of Symbol or 2) Adobe did something very non-standard with that one font and Apple didn't want to code the support for an exception. If I launch Font Book and choose Preview>Custom, I can type anything I want and see it displayed in any font I choose. If I choose Times and in the preview pane and replace everything with m, I'll see m in Times. If I select some other fonts, all I get is m in different faces. But if try Symbol, my “m” gets replaced with the standard, pre-canned assortment of letters and numbers that the default sample shows. It's like Symbol can't be supported normally so Font Book has to construct a preview of the font using back-door tricks. It's hard to explain and probably harder still to understand until you see it yourself. But I confirmed I've got Symbol installed and it defintely does not work with Apple’s apps on OS X. But that's OK, I only used Symbol for the proper foot-length and minute-of-angle symbol ( ′ ) and the proper inch-length and second-of-angle symbol ( ″ ) (vs. the barbarian method, used even in some so-called “professionally produced” brochures, of using the straight-quotes " and ' ). I can live without it. Greg L (my talk) 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, I didn’t see that your example codings included one in Symbol. On my Mac, the one in Symbol appears the same as in Times. Allow me:

All the four below lines are encodings of “m &mu; &#x00B5; &micro; µ ABC abc, 123”

1. In Default font: m μ µ µ µ ABC abc, 123
2. In Times font: m μ µ µ µ ABC abc, 123
3. In Symbol font: m μ µ µ µ ABC abc, 123
4. In Non-existant font: m μ µ µ µ ABC abc, 123

I’ve read before on Mac-related blog sites that Symbol does not work and simply gets replaced with Times and this is indeed what I see: in all my Apple-made apps (but not MS Word), choosing Symbol simply results in the text being displayed in Times. How do the Times and Symbol examples (#2 & #3) above appear to you? On my Macs, lines 2 and 3 appear absolutely identical; that is, the Symbol line to me appears exactly like the Times one appears to you. Greg L (my talk) 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, default / non-existant are the same (I inserted the apparently missing wiki italic markup). Times/Symbol are the same in Firefox 2.0 (linux), but in Opera 9.24 (linux) Times is taken from some ugly bitmapped font (all 4 mu symbols the same), and Symbol seems to take the m/abc/123 from some serif font, the mu from a font with a larger x-height and the micro symbols from an italic font with a smaller x-height. Weird, but I noticed before that Opera sometimes does strange things with fonts. Han-Kwang (t) 18:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that begs the question now: what do you see under the Accuracy column when using Firefox 2.0/Linux when you visit the Micro-g LaCoste Web site(?): “mGal” or “μGal”? Greg L (my talk) 04:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Both FF and Opera show "mGal". :) P.S. Check Begging the question. Han-Kwang (t) 10:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:CSS font size

I didn't change it to the pt system, I just took away small, since it left a big gap between the lines and the print was too small to read, especially in relation to the larger text above it. But, if em is better - so be it. I changed it.--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 13:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Done

:) - with apologies. I don't actually watch that page as much as I should as I kinda expect things to show up on the blacklist I guess. However you are always welcome to nudge me if you feel I miss anything & I'll get to it as soon as I can. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

SI template

Hankwang: Regarding the SI multiples template, another user made this edit with the stated purpose to “allow μ= option”. Now, no matter what I do on Kilogram (&#x00B5; &micro; µ mc), I can’t get the “µg” to display. Do you know what’s up?

By the way, I looked up the “begs the question” article. That's news to me; I always thought it meant that a statement lead naturally to an obvious question. I guess not. Greg L (my talk) 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea to be honest, maybe the editor that added the μ option knows or actually applied the option somewhere? Han-Kwang (t) 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

{{SI multiples 2}}

Copied from here on my talk.

Hi GregL, I see you've sorted out the micro issue with the template. I made an extended version Template:SI multiples 2 that allows suppression of less-common prefixes. It probably needs some more work (such as enabling the &x00b5; parameter), so if you have constructive comments, let me know (on the template talk page). I'm just giving the options, but I'll try to stay out of discussions which prefixes deserve being mentioned in a particular article. Han-Kwang (t) 14:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My answer:

• I can recommend three things. First, the best article I can think of to first employ this new template is Ohm; it currently has no table. And unlike the Volt article (which also has no table), the expression of numerical resistance values in units of ohms is almost always limited to the range of practical measurements using man-made equipment. Unlike volts, where certain natural phenomenon can be expressed as voltages at ridiculous extremes (where no one can actually make measurements), ohms are pretty much never expressed using SI prefixes in ranges beyond that in which they can actually be measured using real-world equippment.

  Note however, that editors must do their homework when deciding where to truncate the table. I would have figured that Meggers would have max’d out at gigaohms. Instead, I find that high-end stuff goes to petaohms. And on the low end, I anticipated that superconductor researchers might be messing around with some exotic low-end resistances, and lo and behold, they appear to be working in the femtoohm range. Interestingly enough, femto and peta are both the ±15 base-ten exponent and—given my twenty whole minutes of research—there seems to be no point using the last six entries in the bottom three tiers of the table.

  The second piece of advise is that editors don’t have gobs of time to research Wikipedia intricacies (“lazy” would be the least charitable way to look at it) so templates, IMO, should be well documented so editors who aren’t template experts (but may have a fair amount of expertise in a particular unit of measure) can read the equivalent of a “Quick Startup Guide” right on the template’s page to easily see how to employ it.

  My final piece of advise is that editors (and template creators?) shouldn’t be too quick to employ the SI multiples 2 template instead of the full-meal-deal SI multiples template, nor should they aggressively truncate the tables. As I just experienced over the last twenty minutes while researching just how far ohms go for the purposes of posting this answer (regarding a unit I had cherry-picked because I was sure it was limited to a much narrower range), there will undoubtedly be notable work at wild extremes that most editors won’t be aware of until they research the subject quite thoroughly. I anticipate that most editors using this new template will quickly find that other editors later wade in and further extend the tables because of issues analogous to research with superconductors.

  Finally, (this isn’t a fourth point of advise so much as it is an observation), the issue I’ve most noticed lately regarding the SI prefixes regards the “bolded” option. While writing Parts-per notation (ppm, ppb, etc.), I realized that no one uses centivolts (see footnote #3); if there is a value of 0.020 V, it is called out as 20 mV, not 2 cV. While these awkward prefixed units may seem obvious to you and me, I think providing the bolding option has been the best service that you and I have ever done for novices reading up on a particular subject. That’s my 2¢ anyway. Greg L (my talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, I now see you requested I answer on the template talk page. Greg L (my talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)