User talk:LucasBrown

Hello.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability.ogv, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Lucas,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 26, 2012. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2012-03-26. —howcheng {chat} 19:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SD None

Hi LucasBrown. Thank you for your multiple edits to short descriptions, but I wonder if I may make a suggestion?
As many people seeing {{Short description|none}} do not understand it, they try to be "helpful" by entering precisely the sort of description you are going around deleting. I have found that adding some hidden text, e.g.  immediately after the {{Short description|none}} reduces (I won't say stops) the number of overwrites.
Just a suggestion - best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I see "none" as amazingly unhelpful, as it assumes that titles are "obvious".

The trouble with "obviousness" is that it is culturally dependent, i.e. what's "obvious" to you is far from obvious to Ahmed, Betty, Carolus from Poland, and Zak from Guyana. I suggest that the value of a "Short description" is that it hints at the area in which the article belongs, thus saving people time when it pops up and indicates to them that they are, or are not, in the right area, so they may navigate accordingly.

I suggest, therefore, that a Short description of "Culinary tradition" is a great deal more helpful to folks from all over – who may well have no idea what the borrowed French word "cuisine" actually means (are we talking haute gastronomie or what?) – than the explicitly unhelpful "none" or whatever random default text that may possibly bring. Accordingly I'm going to modify a whole batch of your edits to this effect, and I hope you'll be more thoughtful in future when deleting useful data from Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does being borrowed from French have to do with recognition of a common word that's been part of English since at least the 18th century? And if they don't know the French-derived term "cuisine", why (whether from Canada or Poland or Ghana) will they know the Latin-derived term, introduced into English a century later, "culinary"? Anyway the SD isn't meant to give dictionary definitions for the individual words in the title. Largoplazo (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: I've reverted a couple of your changes where, in one case, your edit summary reads "a brief SD has value". Please don't undo what others are doing specifically in compliance with the guideline. WP:SDNONE basically says that titles like this are self-descriptive and that, in such cases, to put "None". If you disagree, you ought to take it up at Wikipedia talk:Short description. Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but none of the cuisine titles are necessarily self-descriptive, specially if people aren't quite sure what cuisine means, for instance, so it is useful to be able to learn that an article is about a cooking tradition. This "it's in xyz category" is the job of the SD. If it were true that titles could be obvious then the SD would be redundant..... along with Encyclopedias for that matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you disagree with the guideline, then take it up at the project page, especially since you've got three people here disagreeing with you. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia, and some of your edits belie what you're saying here. At West African cuisine, for example, you added "Overview of the cuisine of West Africa". Every single article on Wikipedia is an overview of its topic, so "overview of" is no help at all, and I fail to see how "cuisine of West Africa" is clearer than "West African cuisine". And you haven't addressed how "culinary traditions" is clearer than "cuisine". And what about readers who don't know what West Africa is? If worse comes to worst and a reader doesn't know a term that's part of a descriptive title, they can look it up. Re your penultimate sentence, the titles of these articles already are in the form of "this is in the xyz category", that's the point. Largoplazo (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, LucasBrown. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Erdős–Moser equation.
Message added 10:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Camless piston engine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAAB.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Erdős–Moser equation

On 5 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erdős–Moser equation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the only known solution to the Erdős–Moser equation is 1 + 2 = 3? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erdős–Moser equation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Erdős–Moser equation), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,538 views (772.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

arctangent series for π

Hi LucasBrown. I mostly reverted your change to Leibniz formula for π‎‎ which I think makes the relevant section significantly more obscure, indirect, jargony, and unfriendly to newcomers. It's likely possible to expand this section a bit if you want to go into more detail, but can you try to keep it moderately accessible to as much of the plausible audience (which might include people whose knowledge is at about the introductory calculus level) as possible? –jacobolus (t) 08:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IT edits

Hi Lucas,

I noted these edits, and while I agree italics are better than bold here, I don't understand why you used a pipe. I see no justification for that at all. --Trovatore (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore I made these edits using the visual editor; I do not know why it put the pipe in. — — LucasBrown 19:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can believe that. Honestly I think you'll be happier if you use the source editor. The complexity people complain about, honestly, rarely comes up; you just need to learn a few simple constructs and then everyday stuff is straightforward. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore I have been editing for over 16 years. While I agree that the source editor is better for some things, for quick edits like this, I find the visual editor to be much easier. — LucasBrown 20:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]