User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 May

Find a citation that Verne's SF is "futuristic" and we can keep the line. Duggy 1138 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The work "Paris in the 20th Century" a "novel written in the 1860s set in the 1960s" is "pretty much by definition irrelevant to the discussion of steampunk." Please read the entire sentence, not just random chunks of it. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly interested in whether Verne is "futuristic" or not (although 20,000 leagues fits the bill pretty well), I'm interested in whether it has relevance to steampunk. Not even if it was steampunk (as that would be a rather anachronistic claim), merely deserving of mention as one of the genre's influences. Your claim, "[Verne is] pretty much by definition irrelevant to the discussion of steampunk" seems like a most peculiar sort of agenda. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What claim? Please don't make stuff up. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Talk:Steampunk. Not your earlier edit to the article itself (which we may or may not agree over, but it's within the bounds of reasonable editorial disagrement). You appear to be snipping away at Verne one by one, first because one novel (Moon) was set in Verne's time with Verne's technology, the next (Paris in the C20th) because it was set post-Verne, with an invented technology. You can't have it both ways, and the only rational explanation would seem to be that you're after removing Verne piecemeal. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Psychic abilities allowing you to come up with rational conclusions about my evil plan. There are 2 basic references (to Verne) in the article. One as an influence in proto-steampunk, and one when refering to a film based on his works. I didn't ask for a cite for either of those references, but rather the decription in the second one of his works as "futuristic" SF. I don't like that description of his work. Scholars don't like that description of his work, except in the 2 stories set IN HIS FUTURE. Please address actual claims I've made and not ones that exist only in your mind. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea futuristic? Subs had been around for a number of years, and Verne had seen a French one... Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're "not terribly interested in whether Verne is 'futuristic' or not" why are you even participating in a discussion about whether Verne is "futuristic" or not? Seems awfully foolish. Duggy 1138 (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forget, or never knew, the pretty templates for this, so:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_11#Barden_Precision_Bearings
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_11#Barden_Corporation

Cheers, - BalthCat (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the new firebox image removed ? What needs to be improved ?

That's this revision of Firebox (steam engine), in relation to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/09/20100512235333!Locomotive_fire_tube_boiler_schematic.png An edited version of File:Locomotive fire tube boiler schematic.png].

Thanks for the image - I see that it's your work and I can understand why you're unhappy to see it removed. I can't make images like that, so I have the greatest respect for those who can - there is certainly need within WP for such illustrations. I've written plenty of content where I need such a diagram and don't have access to one.

However we are also an encyclopedia. We have to be right. This isn't relaxed for images any more than it is for text: diagrams need to be correct, and based on reliable sources.

First off, this isn't just a firebox, it's a locomotive boiler. Both are complicated, but boilers are even more so. Is drawing a whole boiler and superheater the best way to illustrate a firebox? Minor point - maybe it is.

Secondly, there are a number of firebox illustrations already at Commons:

Media related to Steam locomotive boiler fireboxes at Wikimedia Commons Media related to Steam locomotive boilers at Wikimedia Commons

The first one shown here is nice enough, but it's a detailed realistic drawing and so it loses sharpness when thumbnailed.

The second (Swedish) is pretty good: the parts are all there, they're all accurate.

To address the issues of the illustration discussed here, there are several that are just beyond simplification and into "this firebox would explode" and "this drawing shows the opposite of a historically important innovation of the subject's development". I see issues like that as making a diagram beyond usefulness and acceptability. (I'd remove the diagrams from boiler similarly, but I don't yet have replacements for them and have no wish to walk into such an inevitable edit war unprepared.)

• The crown of the firebox is above the water level. That boiler is about to explode
• The lower part of the firebox isn't water-jacketed
• The lowest fire-tube appears to be touching the outer shell of the boiler, rather than being within the water space
• Fireboxes are fired from above the grate, not below it. The grate is also below the fire, not above it.
• There's no air inlet damper shown, nor the brick arch. These are important innovations that should be included (far more relevant than superheaters)
• The "steam outlet pipe" returns to the boiler. There's no such pipe. Nor is the blastpipe (another major innovation) shown
• The "firebox water intake" goes to the boiler, not the firebox. This "intake pipe" is unrepresentative of real boilers. Nor does such an inlet (not even an "intake", that implies suction) go near the firebox.
• The superheater tubes are drawn inside the water space, not a flue
• There's a single narrow fire-tube at the top, above some larger flues. Superheated boilers with such a mix of tube diameters placed the large ones at the top
• The superheater headers appear to be a shared drum. Not on locomotive boilers.

Once again, thanks for your efforts here. I know people put effort in and very rarely see any appreciation for it. But we still need to get things correct (or just "correct enough") and that relies on basing diagrams on accurate representations and not simplifying details that do matter. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bunding, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunding. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Asided m plane (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy - I see you understand the Wikimedia procedures, and would like your opinion on a

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I explained about my bot's edit on Talk:Perilla [1] and re-reverted it. --Puzzlet Chung (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your comment (fact tagging - long boilers were usually 0-6-0, not 4-2-0 (they'd be Norrises or Cramptons) and coupling rods were wrought iron or steel, not cast iron.) perhaps my notes on the talk page will clarify things Chevin (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

While I'm a rather new user and made my posting far longer than I should have (I added it back in, making it far shorter) completely removing my report was blantantly rude. A F K When Needed 10:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my sincere apologies for that. There was an edit collision and I thought I'd pasted mine back in below the rest, I didn't realise I'd overwritten yours. Quite unintentional I assure you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, apologies for being hostile. A F K When Needed 12:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 8-) I bludgeoned your edit in a fashion that was either accidental, or indeed very rude. Thanks for helping to fight the good fight. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really, I

forgot

something.

Anyway, cheers for being such a nice person :-) A F K When Needed 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It happens to others too... mine got accidentally zapped by a bot. I just reposted it, waited a few minutes, and checked it was still there. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Welding goggles#Quality issues, particularly re: arc welding Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is zamak ks and kirksite the same thing? If not I think that KS still ought to be mentioned per zamak. Wizard191 (talk) 13:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirksite started off as Zamak 2, but it has grown since into a family with developed Kirksite alloys that are slightly different (extra Mg to give finer crystallisation from a surface chill, without the shrinkage afterwards that causes orange peel). The main difference is some legalese stuff over brandnames and trademarks. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I made a mistake in all this, which caused my confusion. I thought KS was a subset of zamak 3, but it's a type of zamak 2. Now I understand what you are saying. Sorry about that. Keep up the good work! Wizard191 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]