User talk:Ratzer/Archive 2005

Welcome!

Hi Ratzer, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 20:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Trindade and Martim Vaz

Hi there - copying and pasting page contents isn't the preferred way of moving an article, as it splits the article history between two pages. The correct way is to use the "move" function, or if that's not available (because you're a new user), you can request page moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Regards, sjorford →•← 09:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Isla Sala-y-Gómez

Thanks for all your great work at Isla Sala-y-Gómez. The article has been vastly improved in the past couple days. Tomer ^TALK 20:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Okino Torishima

I'm not subscribed to the newspaper El Mundo online, so I can't send you the text, sorry. I just read the article when I bought the newspaper some time ago and I suppose somehow I got to the article online or it wasn't protected or something.

I did find the same photo with the data in the website of the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, here: http://www.corriere.it/gallery/Esteri/2005/05_Maggio/sindaco/1/SINDACO1.jpg

The corresponding article (in Italian) is here: http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Esteri/2005/05_Maggio/20/okinotorishima.shtml . I hope this info has been useful.

Sorry for taking so long. I don't really use Hotmail anymore... Sabbut 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, please use edit summaries. They help everyone. Short is fine, just be reasonably descriptive. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 14:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Farallón Islands

Great work on that article. It's improved immensely...takes me back to Isla Sala-y-Gómez.... Tomer ^TALK 03:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I just spotted your recent comment in my 'units of area' archive

Hi,

I just spotted your recent comment in my 'units of area' archive. Thank you for reading through the discussion page. I will respond to your comments now.

• You said The problem I have with expressing areas that are in the orders of magnitude of 0.1 ha, 1 ha or 10 ha and that are approximate, in square meters, is that the use of these units pretends many more significant digits than there actually are.
  • Units do not imply precision for readers. The number of trailing zeros is a commonly used guide. For example, text might say that the area of eqypt is 1,000,000 km². The precision is not stated. There are 6 trailing zeros, few reasonable readers would believe that it meant the precision is +/- 1 km².
• You said If you must stick to the strictest interpretation of the SI bible, and where the scientific notation is not practical, IMHO it would be more appropriate to say 0.001 km² than saying 1000 m².
  • On a purely numeric basis, it seems odd to prefer 0.001 over 1000.
  • On a comprehension basis, 1000 m² is easier to visualise than 0.001 km². Areas in square metres can be visualised directly, particularly since they are used in descriptions of homes, offices and gardens. Even without direct experience, it is easy to construct the area in the head by imagining an area of 10 by 100 m, perhaps as the area of a 100 m running track. It is difficult to visualise 0.001 km² or construct it in the head.
  • However, if that is what you want, I don't mind.
• You said: What about "square hectometers" (hm²) (same as hectares), would that be totally SI-conformant? "Hecto" is a SI prefix, is it not?
  • Yes. You are correct. As you can see at metre. The 'hectometre' is correct SI. So a square hectometre would be a correct form of 'hectare'. The hectare itself is not encouraged.
  • I would not mind so much if people used square hectometres instead of hectares. But that it is not the real answer. It is a 'soft conversion' and just a translation word-for-word. Translations word-for-word are limited in what they can achieve. I can think in English and translate word for word into Spanish. I might be understood but it will be bad Spanish. It would be better to forget English and express the thoughts directly in Spanish. It is the same for translating metric units. A value in square hectometres just might be understood but the best way to express it is in square metres or square kilometres.
  • It would be easy to test comprehension of area in both directions.
    • 1.From real world to numeric value. Look at something and try to guess the area in hectares or hm². You would almost certainly be more accurate with m² or km².
    • 2. From numeric value to real world. Take a given numeric value quoted in hectares or hm². Then identify an area in the real world that is equal to that numeric value. You would almost certainly be more accurate with m² or km².

Those are just my thoughts. Thanks for discussing it with me. Bobblewik 13:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Desecheo Island

There seems to be a grammar mistake or garble in the following:

The island belongs to the city of Mayaguez, barrio of Mona Island.

Also, this and some of your other islands seems to me to be bordering on qualifying for deletion as not notable, but I'm not too familiar with the rules as they apply to physical geography. Maybe merge all of them into one article.

--David Woolley 12:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)