Leave a new message!I will reply and drop a note on your talk page unless I know you'll check back here. Please be sure to sign your posts with ~~~~ so I know who you are!
OK, here's the scam: I've taken over the Eilat page for a major update, upgrade and expansion (it IS my home town, after all) and even got the template to say so. My current problem is this: the Coral World Underwater Observatory Marine Park, Eilat, is the first of its kind in the world, but the link Coral World goes to the second one in the Virgin Islands. What I think is needed is a disambiguation notice on the VI page saying something like "for Coral World EILAT see Eilat page" etc. Then when I've finished with the city of Eilat maybe I'll get around to creating a new page. a) Does that make WP sense? b) Would you do it for me? I'll learn in time.... but right now I'm up to my EARS. Thank you, Shir-El too04:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. this is from WQ:[reply]
For out of olde feldes, as men seith,
Cometh al this new corn fro yeer to yere;
And out of olde bokes, in good feith,
Cometh al this newe science that men lere.
~ Geoffrey Chaucer ~
P.P.S. May we continue here? Ping-pong between your page and mine is a @#$^ in the )(@^#%*($. Thank you!
YAY! Shir-El! I'm so happy to hear from you! Thanks so much for that lovely quote! Okay, a quick glance at the page, and I'd suggest a couple things. First, maybe go to one of the featured articles on cities, like New York, and see what order the sections go in. This article has History in the middle, buried under tourism and attractions, so I'd move history up to be the first thing readers see, after the introduction. As for the Coral World thing, I'd change the wiki link in the Eilat page to be Coral World Observatory, which is a red link and then just create the article when you're ready. Because one is an observatory, and one is a marine park, this would seem to be a good compromise and not require a disambiguation page. To each of the Coral World articles, you can add a hatnote to the top to direct readers if they've reached the wrong one. Normally, disambiguation pages aren't created until there are more than 2 items with the same name, so in this case it is probably not needed, and a small hatnote would work. Then, as part of the cleanup, I'd suggest removing the naked URLs out of the article space (when a URL is just placed in brackets in an article) and put them into references. You can see templates for this at WP:CIT, or you can just put reference tags around the URLs like this: <ref>URL</ref> so that at least they show as footnotes, and will display in the footnotes/reference section. Changing references into templates for standardization is my hobby, but the templates are kind of not explained very well, so many people just put ref tags around a URL. It is best if it is done inside brackets, giving the title, author, etc., but once you're done if you would like me to stick the references into templates, I'd be more than happy to do that! Just holler and let me know. I'm glad to see you back! (P.S. Are you sure you'd like me to do the hatnote thing for you? I just saw your edit, so I want to be sure) Ariel♥Gold04:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the help I can get...
You're points are taken, but it'll take time to implement; I'll need to re-read a few times to get the hang of it. The article is still very raw, with much to be added, edited and cited, so I'd appreciate the hatnote help but please remember: the Eilat location is "Coral World - Underwater Observatory and Marine Park, Eilat" - the observatory predates the park, and there is another, mobile celestial observatory to take into account.
I'll take all the help available for this one: it is the most ambitious task of its kind I have ever undertaken... and you know by now research, citations, references, etc. have been a foreign language until now. But it's a shame to let the Eilat page be so dull when this place is anything but! [BTW have my its/it's improved any?]
I'm also using the history/talk pages to leave messages for anyone who's been interested and is still active on WP: "Shalom! I'm trying to expand and bring the Eilat page up to date. From the history/talk pages you have been there too, so please come and see what we can do to make it even better. Thank you, Shir-El too" What do you think? [I may be barrowing trouble, but I'm hoping it will be worth it.] GOT to run. Will be back soon - and Thank You again- Shir-El too14:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to be sure you wanted help, and didn't want to do it by yourself, I'm fine with either way you decide to go, and I think that since the Eilat Coral World is an "Observatory", in its title (do you have a URL for them, do they have a homepage?) it could be named that reasonably. I'll look again at the other park and see if they have a site as well, to see their official name. There has to be a way we can name them differently. If there is a third "Coral World" place, then we could do a disambig page. I'll check into that as well. I think it is fine to ask others who have edited the page for help, if they are still around, there is a major difference between inviting people to help improve an article, and inviting people to comment on other types of discussions (like deletions, which is a huge no-no, and called canvassing). You're not doing anything wrong by asking them, as long as it isn't tons of people, lol. I tell you what, I'll start by doing some general cleanup on the article, putting the references into templates for standardization, and I'll look into some other things. And then as we find more info, if you want to take a stab at putting them into the templates, it could be a good experiment. Sound good? (And yes, lol, you're it's are perfect!) P.S. Have I said how happy I am to hear from you!? Ariel♥Gold14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I did some prelim work, but the whole tourism and attractions section needs work, both to remove the really "advertisement" sounding tone/words, but also to put all the URLs either into refs or down to external links. I'll keep working on it. I did add a note to the talk page, which I think you'd be able to help with, I put a news report that was in the external links up into the article, but I'm not familiar enough with the political history of the city to really formulate what it relates to. Basically, there needs to be a section at the end of the history that explains the reason that Egypt's FM declared the city "Israel's", and explain the issues of it remaining Palestinian. Evidently there's some history there, and definitely relevant, but I'm not able to figure out how to word it. So I think you'd be great at that. I'll work on the rest of it as well, the whole tourist thing, and then the Coral World thing. Ariel♥Gold17:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suez Canal
I visited the page before signing off and saw a lot of great changes. In Modern era, could you reference the 1956 - Suez Crisis after Suez Canal? It's perfect for it. G'Night! [And Tks: I'm glad to be back!] Shir-El too01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do much yet, still a lot to do, lots of naked URLs floating in the article, lol. Gilabrand did a lot of the work today as well, taking care of much of the promotional tone of the tourism section. I'll work on it more later today. :) Ariel♥Gold04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improper use of conversion templates, and problems with what they do
I realize that using templates will probably allow you to do a better job of making conversions than if you did them with a calculator or with pencil and paper. But when they've already been done by someone else, that someone else is most likely a whole lot more competent at making them than you are. Please leave them alone. For example, here are some of the conversions you added to Space Shuttle in several different edits.
was
ArielGold template
ArielGold seen
GN says
notes
The payload capacity is 50,000 lb (22,700 kg).
convertW|50000|lb|kg|1|lk=on
The payload capacity is 50,000 pounds (22,679.6 kg).
original or "50,000 lb (23,000 kg)" or "50,000 lb (23 t)"
reduced from 424 mph (682 km/h) to approximately 215 mph (346 km/h), (compared to 160 mph (260 km/h) for a jet airliner), at touch-down. The landing gear is deployed while the Orbiter is flying at 267 mph (430 km/h). To assist the speed brakes, a 40 ft (12 m) drag chute is deployed either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 213 mph (343 km/h). It is jettisoned as the Orbiter slows through 69 mph (110 km/h).
convert|424|mph|km/h|1|abbr=on|lk=on convert|215|mph|km/h|1 convert|160|mph|km/h|1|abbr=on convert|267|mph|km/h|1 ft to m|40 convert|213|mph|km/h|1 convert|69|mph|km/h|1
reduced from 424 mph (682.4 km/h) to approximately 215 miles per hour (346 km/h), (compared to 160 mph (257.5 km/h) for a jet airliner), at touch-down. The landing gear is deployed while the orbiter is flying at 267 miles per hour (429.7 km/h). To assist the speed brakes, a 40 feet (12 m) drag chute is deployed, either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 213 miles per hour (342.8 km/h). The chute is jettisoned as the orbiter slows through 69 miles per hour (111 km/h).
^ abcYou need to choose the proper units to be converted to. In these cases, the previous editors had already used the proper units, and you improperly changed them.
^The spelled out vs. abbreviated choices are questionable.
^Spelled out units as adjectives do not change form in plural. The plural form here is improper.
Those black box templates are deceptive. Some of the problems with them could be fixed--for how long, who knows? But in order to use them correctly, you need to know all the nuances of the parameters associated with them, you need to be aware of ambiguities in the names of the units converted from or to, and most of all you need to use some common sense to make sure that what gets presented isn't way overprecise or way underprecise. There are often two arguable choices as to where to round them off, sometimes more, but many of yours go way beyond acceptable limits.
Additional problem: Your templates will not show significant zeros following the decimal point.
I haven't commented on your linking choices.
You made some other changes with other templates, too. I just looked for "convert" which found the "convertW" as well, and one {{ft to m}} got in with the bunch. The {{convert}} template seems to be a little more polished than the {{convertW}}.
Well, first, I do perform the calculations myself, at least twice or three times, before using templates, in the case of the Space Shuttle article. These conversion templates are there for a reason, because peoples' math is infallible. I don't just throw them in willy-nilly, as you seem to have the impression I do. I compare the results before, and after, and double check them. I'm also fully aware of convert, and convertW, ft to m, and the many other conversion templates, as well as the proper use of parameters, and I have used them correctly, if I didn't, it is a simple mistake or typo, not because I don't know what I'm doing. I'm really unsure what your concern is, you say use the "proper" precision, but there's nothing wrong with using a more precise measurements, especially with technical items, and the majority of my template additions added a level of precision not there previously. I follow the WP:MOS, which states that the first instance is fully spelled out, and wiki-linked, and the subsequent uses are neither. Obviously, in some articles I may have missed a prior mention/link, but for the most part I try to be careful to check, and make the first mention wiki linked and not abbreviated.
I'm going to be honest and say that to come here, dump a huge table like this with criticism of someone whose background you are unfamiliar with, is not only a bit harsh, but is not likely to be reacted to well. I see you've done the similar thing to other editors, using comments like "If you don't know how to use the precision parameter, don't do it. Leave it to someone smarter than you are." And your comment here to me: "someone else is most likely a whole lot more competent at making them than you are. ", which is false, I have to say, I find that kind of comment unhelpful, bordering on rude. While I'm doing my very best to not react to your comments negatively, I'm going to just say that I would have appreciated a helpful note that explained your concerns nicely, and offering assistance, rather than filling my talk page with a table like this. Ariel♥Gold05:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thrust is a force. It is not correct to misidentify its units as units of mass, and improperly convert them as if they were units of mass. A great many units are ambiguous, used with several different meanings. Before you can use a black box to make the conversions, you need to make sure that you know what is being used in the first place.
The conventional metric units of delta-v are meters per second (an appropriate prefix can be used when the size warrants it: 37 km/s, for example). Those were the units used in this article, before you improperly changed them. Nobody uses kilometers per hour for this. You need to properly identify the units to be the targets of the conversion. Similarly, centimeters are okay for your hat size and for cubic centimeters, but are otherwise little used in a technical context. And using them with decimal fractions is ugly in any case. For our particular example, I'd say that "1 cm" would be acceptable; however, "1.27 cm" is not, even if the precision of that half-inch number warranted it (which it does not).
Problems with "black box" templates
It is not correct to say "a 40 feet drag chute".
It is not correct omit leading zeros (.5 rather than 0.5). This is clearly covered in the MoS.
It is not correct to say "27,404 foot per second" rather than "27,404 feet per second" (this isn't an adjective like the drag chute example above)
It is not correct to say "0.5 inches"; it should be "0.5 inch"
The problem of not presenting significant zeros after the decimal point sometimes matters.
Problems with an overliteral reading of the MoS and with the fact that the MoS varies over time
The convoluted wording about precision we now find still says you are wrong, but it was probably clearer in the older wording. The MoS advice about precision used to be expressed more succinctly, in a way you are more likely to understand. The current guidance isn't contrary to this, merely obfuscated and confusing in the way it is worded. It used to say something along these lines (as of 22 Feb 2007 and for quite a long period before and after that):
"Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)"."
The MoS doesn't say that the first occurence of a unit needs to be linked. It may say that they should not be linked in later occurences. But right now, I'm not particularly concerned about the linking, there are hugely more important problems here.
If you continue to insist that your conversions are correct, you and I are going to be tangling for a long time. Let's start by finding out how much of this you do agree with, and how much you are willing to change. Gene Nygaard12:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also see that the MoS still has wording pretty explicit about this, maybe even better than it used to be:
Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth, not ... (236,121 mi). The exceptions are values with only one significant figure, which, to avoid the introduction of inaccuracy, may need to be converted to a greater level of precision; for example, one mile (1.6 km), not one mile (2 km).
Now that kind of explanation is much more helpful than a giant convoluted table that does nothing to present the issues in a readable format. Thank you. That being said, I was not "insisting" anything, but merely stating my personal opinion, and since your initial comment started out basically insulting my intelligence, and calling me "incompetent", neither of which was very civil or helpful, I may have naturally reacted with a bit of defensiveness, even though I tried not to. You are right that I do disagree with the precision item; I think that with some technical items, "rounding off" is not a good idea, but I'm not inflexible, and I don't edit-war, so feel free to make any changes you see fit, even if you wish to revert every instance of a template in the Space Shuttle article. Or, if you insist they be removed, but don't wish to do it yourself, I'll be happy to do it when I get a chance. I would of course prefer to leave some of them, as I do think that precision is more important in that article than the MOS's recommendations (specific example: operational altitude, which previously rounded 963km up to 1000km) or in some, just remove the parameter that adds a decimal point, which solves most of the issues. But again, I'm not about to argue about it, or edit-war over it. Ariel♥Gold12:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I had to go back and figure out what I did! That was no biggie, no thanks needed at all, just noticed that removed another comment, so I just went about my little Wiki-Fairy job and replaced it. Ariel♥Gold18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL I do! The former, of course, much more than the latter. But both are equally as fun to dig through and figure out what you "did" lol. Hi Isotope! :) Ariel♥Gold18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. My personal favorite is the cryptic "Why did you delete my page?" Inevitably it takes me 10 minutes to figure out that I deleted some page 5 months ago and the editor is just now realizing it and complaining. It got to the point I made a banner for it.--Isotope23talk18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~*Giggle*~ That's too funny! Yeah I imagine that would be quite a challenge, especially if it is an IP that's not static asking, eh? Heheheh Ariel♥Gold18:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have no idea what that's referring to either, and I did look into it to try to figure it out when it was first posted, lol. Ariel♥Gold19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
anyone of the myriad that watch this page know much about doing programming of any kind to get info out of MEdiaWiki? Not for Wikipedia, but for the office Wiki. Drop me a line either here or on my talk page. Thanks! — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)03:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I not know, but I don't even have a clue what your question is asking, lmao. You know who would probably be able to help though, is Cobi, at the least, he'd probably be able to point you in the right direction. Ariel♥Gold04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I can provide any kind of real answer to that question, you're going to have to be a little bit more specific. In the end, I might not know exactly how to do what you want to do...But I run my own Office Wiki, and at the very least, I'd like to follow the discussion... --MikeVitale04:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I wasn't actually expecting you to know, Ariel, but this page has high visibility among some very nice people (anyone who is a friend of yours must be nice!) so I thought it would be a good place to ask. SQL has answered my question in the first instance and given me direction to move in. Mike, to answer you more fully, I wanted to know if there was a nice easily parsable way to get at some data in a wiki, without having to "screen scrape" the html, but also not querying the back end database directly. Apparently there is :) — TimotabTimothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)13:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
