→Thank you: c |
Wtshymanski (talk | contribs) Insufficiently socialized group |
||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
::What amazes me is how personal the comments can get. It's just a transistor! [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
::What amazes me is how personal the comments can get. It's just a transistor! [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
::: See above about not being distinguishable from basement-dwellers. Normal people don't write encyclopedias. We may not have anyone like [[William Chester Minor]], but that road runs past a lot of our houses. --[[User:Wtshymanski|Wtshymanski]] ([[User talk:Wtshymanski#top|talk]]) 01:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:44, 27 March 2011
Ohm's Law
Hello please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ohm%27s_law this article and help me understanding this problem. I can show you a video in youtube which I made measuring 110 volts =).--Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously there is a giant conspiracy. Spread the word that physicists and electrical engineers have been pulling the wool over our eyes for too long. You must not waste your powers here. Go, go, for the good of the city! But seriously, so you got a shock from an improperly grounded and faulty power supply? How does this disprove Ohm's Law? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It's simple :). The 110 volts are carriyng too low current yet they don't face a big resistance. So when they hit me (the volts) should be able to kill me yet they can't. 110 are a lot of volts. Another problem is the Zener(Cener?) diode. It is used for stabilizating the voltage and even if you increase the current through it the voltage stays the same. Yet the resistance is the same or maybe the diode is lowering it's resistance. Also why the 110 volts doesn't damage my computer? Why they are not harmful if they don't face big resistance they should carry big current given Ohm's law?--Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Pulser Pump
Before claiming the pulser pump principle doesn't work, please read the following about the ragged chute air plant
How it works
Ragged Chute was specifically designed to produce air compressed to 862.5 kPa (gauge). Its intake shaft is 107 m deep and the tunnel-chamber has a blow-off valve to prevent increased pressure. There are control gates to limit the amount of water entering the plant works. As well, the two intake heads, each made up of 72, 36 cm pipes, can be raised or lowered to maintain a constant depth over the bulkhead, usually about 46 cm of water. From the heads, the water is fed into one pipe which widens just before the bottom. This is designed to decrease the pressure in the pipe and allow the air bubbles to collect and merge. At the base of the shaft are two steel-sheathed concrete cones which break the initial impact of the air-water mixture, and direct its flow into the horizontal chamber. The chamber collects the compressed air and channels it to a receiver pipe, 61 cm in diameter. The receiver then carries the compressed air to a valve house where it is transmitted to Cobalt for distribution. The 51 cm diameter stell transmission pipe has telescopic expansion joints every 0.8 km to allow for the effects of temperature change. The pipe is above ground and can expand about a metre each 1.6 km on a hot, sunny day. Compressed air must be dry because through friction, humidity decreases the efficiency of both the pipeline and the motors using the air. Water vapor also causes exhaust freezing in motors; the escaping air expands rapidly, which requires a great deal of heat energy. And, finally, the moisture washes away the lubricants within the motors. The air transmitted from Ragged Chute is much drier than it was before compression because the water temperature is so cold it condenses the moisture in the air bubbles whil still in the intake shaft. The condensation then remains with the water when the air-water mixture separates. The low humidity of Ragged Chute air is one of the most remarkable features of the plant. The blow-off valve is a 30 cm pipe beside the receiver leading to a point underwater on the river bed. It reaches into the tunnel-chamber to the critical depth where it rests in water as long as the air is compressed to 862.5 kPa (gauge). But when the pressure increases, the water level within the chamber lowers slightly, allowing the excess pressure to escape. When it does blow, a stream of water often shoots over 30 m into the air. This spectacular, geyser-like blow-off is most commonly associated with the Ragged Chute Compressed Air Plant.
As you can see, the Rugged Chute air plant is a pulser pump! It pumps water up to 30m high (through the blow-off valve) and it has been in operation since 1910. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rijkbenik (talk • contribs) 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- But that's air! THe mass of air raised relative to the mass of water flowing through the trompe must be a tiny fraction. In a pulser pump, for every cubic meter of water that passes through, how much can be raised higher than the input? And how does energy get coupled from the main flow to the elevated flow? It's a bit magical and counter-intuitive, you must admit. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody said it was efficient :-) Thank you for improving the title of the Pulser pump article. (Rijkbenik (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC))
Grrr, Grr...go away
I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).
B*ching and moaning
- Edit warring
If you parse "official" narrowly enough, you can make it mean anything you want...though it helps to have an admin hammer to make consensus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Manitoba
Oh thank you, I was *so* worried I wasn't going to have permission from some anonymous person on the Wikipedia to have my own opinions.--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- If arrogance was petroleum, the Mideast and the tar sands would be out of business. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd advise using a different example
I'd advise using a different example... Cheers!--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- After looking at Energy and the environment I'm not sure that also doesn't deserve an AfD. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I very well may agree with you there. But I only suggested changing it there so that someone doesn't inevitably point it out leading to side conversations and distracting from the main argument and all that jazz.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's also weak and, once again, you do have the right to ignore my input, I won't be hurt, but hmm. Heh.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please tell me I haven't hit another one this time. But it's useful to see that "...and the environment" produces a whole set of feeble articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- "... management" is another MUAG (Mostly Useless Article Group). Jeh (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- And so Environmental management must exist...at least it's not "Management and the environment". --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd try to delete or merge the worst duplications if I had more time, but it can be stressful and time consuming.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
- And so Environmental management must exist...at least it's not "Management and the environment". --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- "... management" is another MUAG (Mostly Useless Article Group). Jeh (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please tell me I haven't hit another one this time. But it's useful to see that "...and the environment" produces a whole set of feeble articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's also weak and, once again, you do have the right to ignore my input, I won't be hurt, but hmm. Heh.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- I very well may agree with you there. But I only suggested changing it there so that someone doesn't inevitably point it out leading to side conversations and distracting from the main argument and all that jazz.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
NoPoPo Carbon Magnesium Battery
Hi, I see you deleted my edit and called it vandalism. It was not. But I could see how you thought it would be from the silly name. I put it back. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- There were no references, and it was added to a redlink. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Paper machine
The references you are deleting meet Wikipedia guidelines, which specify that the sources be: 1. Reliable and 2. Published. These sources are both as the Technical Association for the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) has published books containing this information and currently publish the materials on CDs. Most industry professionals are familiar with this material and many have the referenced publications.
- Those aren't references. It's no good saying that you can take a pulp and paper industry course. You need to properly cite a specific title, hopefully with page references and an ISBN. You might as well cite a 4-year history degree as a "reference" for the French Revolution. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy is to make sure that references are factual, not that they are freely available. Ordinarily this type of reference material is not widely available in any industry, so perhaps this article is too technical for the average reader. This information is available at the Institute of Paper Science library at Georgia Tech, which I once had a library card for; however, even that cost me $40 about 15 years ago. I wrote most of the article myself, based on my experience as one of the leading professionals in the field (Senior Corporate Staff Paper Engineer for the world's largest paper company) and I have given what I believe to be the best references. To provide the information from individual sources is impractical because of the complicated nature of the individual component technologies, most of which would again only be available in pulp and paper libraries. Again, if you do not agree with the Wikipedia policy, you should not be editing; nor should you try to edit something for which you do not have the expertise.Phmoreno (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if you're Stephen bloody Hawking, a secret reference is no reference. Saying "Somebody has a 3-ring binder with all this stuff in it some where" isn't a reference. Don't give the "best" reference, give one that someone could get by interlibrary loan. You don't give a publisher, date, or accurate title of any of the secret documents you allege are references. In spite of what voodoo practitioners think, their rites and cantrips are all on the public record somewhere. So should it be with the pulp and paper business. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy is to make sure that references are factual, not that they are freely available. Ordinarily this type of reference material is not widely available in any industry, so perhaps this article is too technical for the average reader. This information is available at the Institute of Paper Science library at Georgia Tech, which I once had a library card for; however, even that cost me $40 about 15 years ago. I wrote most of the article myself, based on my experience as one of the leading professionals in the field (Senior Corporate Staff Paper Engineer for the world's largest paper company) and I have given what I believe to be the best references. To provide the information from individual sources is impractical because of the complicated nature of the individual component technologies, most of which would again only be available in pulp and paper libraries. Again, if you do not agree with the Wikipedia policy, you should not be editing; nor should you try to edit something for which you do not have the expertise.Phmoreno (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Paper Institute library http://www.ipst.gatech.edu/ used to have a research service where they would retrieve articles for a fee, so if there is anything you would like additional information on you can get it by mail. Of course you have to pay for the library card.Phmoreno (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then put this in the citations so that a reader can contact this institution and request the 3-ring binder, though it would also be useful if you'd identify the title of the document, author, date...you know, bibiliographic stuff? As an industry professional you are doubtless familiar with the requirements for bibliographic information in all references, and Wikipedia needs no less. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- The Paper Institute library http://www.ipst.gatech.edu/ used to have a research service where they would retrieve articles for a fee, so if there is anything you would like additional information on you can get it by mail. Of course you have to pay for the library card.Phmoreno (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- TAPPI is the publisher, as was noted. The books for the courses have numerous authors and they are updated annually. Again, the sources were listed and also the link to the Paper Institute was there, but I will redo the refs and refer to the library. Removing references that you know nothing about is vandalism. If you want to add to the refs you are certainly welcome to; however, being ignorant of the reference material or too lazy to check with the library is no excuse. Anyone who seriously wants the information can get it as long as the references I added are there.Phmoreno (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I look forward to proper citation of these documents. If I had removed someothing that looked like a reference, you may have had a point - but a mysterious assertion that somewhere there exists hidden knowledge, is not a reference in the sense used here on Wikipedia. As an industry insider, you may have noticed bibliographic references written at the ends of papers you've seen - we need similar citations here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you are subject matter expert, and perhaps even if you are, the discussion page is the appropriate place to put proposed changes. Please do not tamper with material unless you are absolutely certain that it is in error. If something needs upgrading, per WIki policy, the discussion page is again the appropriate place if a "needs citation" tag is not adequate.
- I may only have seen a paper machine once, but you don't have to be a subject matter expert to recognize a faulty citation. This is a common fault of subject matter experts on Wikipedia - they airly assume everyone has the same 5-foot shelf of books they do, and so don't bother opening the front cover and writing down all that stuff that appears on the copyright page. Such authors are considered lazy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Personal computer's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Stability eqn.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stability eqn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. mechamind90 07:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Minor grammar note
Hello.
I thought it might be helpful if I perhaps explained the difference. It's what's known as the use-mention distinction.
If you say, "a dog refers to a canine", you're saying that some dog itself likes making reference to a particular canine. If, however, you say, "the term 'dog' refers to a canine", then you're making a declaration about the word 'dog'.
In the former case, "dog" is being used. In the latter, it's being mentioned. In the absence of actual quotes, omitting "the phrase", "the word", or "the term" firmly cements the meaning as a declaration about the animal, rather than the word.
It's similar to the difference between saying, "I like magma", and "I like 'magma'". If you were to assume that italicized words should always be treated as though they were quoted, you could use it as an alternative to the latter, but that would be somewhat nonstandard and ambiguous. However, it becomes entirely unambiguous when you change it to, "I like the word 'magma'". (Of course, this assumes that you're expressing a fondness for saying 'magma', rather than a fondness for glowing rock sludge. And, really, who doesn't like both?)
Unfortunately, as this is a semi-dynamic IP, a reply on my own talk page wouldn't really work. That said, it certainly won't offend me if you simply delete (and disregard) this note. However, I'd greatly prefer that you not again revert the article to the grammatically incorrect version. 139.57.100.63 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Good to know the last grammatical error in that article has been fixed. This is way too subtle for me. I shall confine myself to removing "poo" from vandalized articles since obviously my grasp of English is only a little better than a Bangalore correspondence school dropout. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Good call
I agreed with your reinstatement of refimprove tag on Shell (computing). I saw when someone pulled both tags off earlier; I'm glad you fixed it. Cheers! Msnicki (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- There just has to be something written about shells that someone (more familiar with the literature than I) could put in. I don't agree with robotically tagging every article that has no references, but this one I think could benefit. I wonder how many of our claimed 3.8 million articles actually have references? WP:BOLD! --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Capacitor
Wtshymanski, I don't want to get into an edit war, but the Capacitor article is difficult or impossible for a non-specialist to understand, as somebody already complained [1] -- even somebody with a PhD in another field.
The introduction is still pretty difficult. I had a friend who read this article and couldn't understand it. You should at least give a non-specialist an introduction that they can understand and learn something from.
I didn't write my own description of a capacitor; I paraphrased a WP:RS, from an educator at Rice University who was better at explaining electronics to undergraduates and ordinary people than I am. He used a concrete example -- which is an old teacher's trick to make things easier to understand.
I realize that in Wikipedia, your outside credentials don't count. But I'm a medical writer by profession, and I explain things to intelligent, educated non-specialists all the time. I found out by talking to them that concepts and terms that seem obvious to me and everybody in the field aren't obvious to them.
An example in your edit is the term "conductor." Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who don't understand exactly what the word "conductor" means. They may have an *idea* of what a conductor is, but doesn't help to use a word like that in the introduction when you're trying to explain other concepts. And what is a "non-conductor"?
The editor of Discover magazine once told me that they were trying to get "extreme clarity." In an introduction, you need extreme clarity.
Before I write something important for publication, ideally I test it on people of the sort that I'm writing for. I actually tried out that introduction to Capacitor on my friend (the one who couldn't understand Capacitor), and she understood my introduction.
Try it. Find an intelligent person who has no particular expertise in electronics, and try to explain a capacitor. Show them your introduction and see if they understand it. --Nbauman (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- On the other hand, we don't link every single word in an article either, just in case the reader doesn't know what is means. We can't explain all of physics in every article. Why would someone with no interest in the subject matter be looking at this? Presumably someone interested in such an obscure topic as "capacitors" has some interest in the field and is prepared to look up such obscure words as "conductor" if she/he genuinely has never run across the concept of a conductor before. I don't know that it is meaningful to try to explain what a capacitor does, if the reader doesn't even know what a conductor is.
- When I was the proverbial "bright 12-year-old" that our articles hypothetically target, I surely did not appreciate the dumbed-down explanations offered by " The Big Book of Science for Kids" in anything I was really interested in. I think we actively mislead the reader if we say all capacitors are little rolled up tubes of metal foil with wire leads and separated by waxed paper - for that matter, do we have to explain what a "metal" is? Or a "tube"? Or a "wire"? Where does the infinite regress end? And if you're a professional writer, you must be between gigs if you're wasting valuable time here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you studied engineering, as you seem to have, then you must have been taught the KISS principle. The same rule applies to writing, especially in an introduction. You have to write simply, if you want people to understand it. If you don't care whether people understand it, what's the point of writing it?
- It's possible and easy to write a description of a capacitor that non-specialists can understand. The Rice University course material that I linked to did it. They're professional educators. I followed their way. That's the way to do it.
- It's not an infinite regress. There are certain words and concepts that are more familiar to undergraduates, and some that aren't. Educators like the engineering professors from Rice know from experience what they are. I'm really saying that you should follow a WP:RS rather than your own explanation.
- And your remark about my being "between gigs" is uncourteous. WP:Etiquette. --Nbauman (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- None of the people I know who write for pay, write for the Wikipedia at all (even between gigs). I can't imagine someone who gets ppaid to write, wasting time here. A failure of my imagination, evidently. Why would anyone think I studied engineering,anyway? Credentials mean nothing on the Wikipedia. Where I can find a list of the words and concepts that are familiar to undergraduates so I can dumb down my writing appropriately? And since when are "undergraduates" the target for a Wikipedia article, anyway? My prospective alternative wording includes the waxy cylinder with wire leads that Rice evidently described, while also acknoledging the diversity of configurations that real capacitors have. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- And your remark about my being "between gigs" is uncourteous. WP:Etiquette. --Nbauman (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Your edit
In [2], what is a "buble?" Bubble, or bulb? (Apparently bulb).(Etymologically, the words are probably related). Warmest regards. Edison (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fat fingers and late night typing strike again. Mrs. Farina would be horrified to see how my typing skills have actually declined after 35 years. --Wtshymanski (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
If this is nonsense, take it to AfD & explain why. It's not obvious enough for speedy deletion. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Mergeto on microinverter
I'd prefer to remove the mergto in microinverter. Yes, a microinverter is a subclass of inverter, but then again, a car is a subclass of transport vehicle. We have a separate article for "car", and for exactly the same reasons, I would argue the microinverter needs its own article too. After all, the issue is extremely hot in the industry, and a quick googling will demonstrate the use of the term. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, a solar inverter works with several panels, and a microinverter works with one panel - but what is fundamentally different about them? A microinverter does everything that a "solar inverter" does, except it has to do it more cheaply because it's connected to an 80 watt panel instead of a kilowatt array. I must re-read both articles, maybe it will then become obvious why there needs to be two articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Its all about panel isolation. With a traditional inverter the panels are wired in series, so like bad christmas tree lights, any failure ("failure" including bird droppings or a passing cloud) takes down the entire string. With a microinverter the panels are in parallel so these problems are eliminated. The downside is cost. If the system is small and the total cost isn't much different, you almost always go for it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wondering if you'd agree to early closure of your AfD. I don't see a consensus forming to delete the article. If someone from the IEEE thinks it's a historically significant transistor, it meets my criteria for tech-cruft, and if it meets mine it's going to meet anyone's. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Let it run! There's still hope for few days. I surely cannot be the only editor tired of dead-end lazy "articles" like this - you might as well write an "article" about every Sparpak hanging on a hook at the hardware store. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd always assumed that you were some sort of electrical or electronic engineer, but if you AfD'ed the 2N3055, I can only assume not. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The preceding comment is pointless and harsh. Wtshymanski is clearly very knowledgable about electronics and electrical engineering, but has never asserted any credentials. As for the AFD, let it run. This particular transistor might be notable, along with a handfull of others, as I said in the AFD, but lots of others would not be. Edison (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's not halfway harsh enough. For someone who might be assumed to know beforehand the significance of the 2N3055 (just how many transistors are there where you're on "first name" terms with them?), then that's just creating disruption for the hell of it. What is the point of this AfD? Is it a protest at article quality? A common move, often effective, but still disruptive. If it's a sincere attempt to delete something for not being notable, than that can only be explained by a charitable assumption of naivety and editing far outside one's sphere of knowledge.Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The preceding comment is pointless and harsh. Wtshymanski is clearly very knowledgable about electronics and electrical engineering, but has never asserted any credentials. As for the AFD, let it run. This particular transistor might be notable, along with a handfull of others, as I said in the AFD, but lots of others would not be. Edison (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Edison. Wtshymanski is anonymous like most of us. His personal credentials are irrelevant. We should focus on whether the article in question clears the bar for WP:NOTABILITY, not trying to guess what other editors do for a living. Msnicki (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm like the rest of you lot; a 15-year old with time on his hands because he lives in his parent's basement (or indistinguishable from the same). Let's have an article on "1/4-2 x 3/4 inch bolt" and its ilk. Lazy articles written by people who won't crack a book serve no purpose in an encyclopedia. There's also 300,000 asteroid articles that I'd cheerfully blow away because they have zero content, but that ship sailed a long time ago. (3.8 million articles, 1.9 million of which are robotic rubbish.) Yes, we all have fond memories of '70s magazines where thick-fingered hobbyists were encouraged to coat a 2N3055 with solder while building some power supply or stereo amp - but outside that cozy little pocket, what significance does any particular part number have in the outside world? If this transistor is so important to understanding the world around us today, why did it take an AfD for anyone to pay attention to the article? The point of the AfD is to get rid of parts-list-cruft on the Wikipedia ( a very large windmill and Sancho is a long time bringing my spare lance).
- Disruptive? To edit is also to cut out. Not every parts list item is an encyclopedia topic. Wikipedia's data storage may be indefinite, but human editor time is in short supply.
- Editing outside a sphere of knowledge? The Wikipedia model disparages subject knowledge.
- If you have to explain during the AfD just what sort of thins is a 2N3055, maybe, just maybe, the thing has not enough notability outside the cozy little world of hobby electronics to make it a stand-alone topic for a general encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Edison. Wtshymanski is anonymous like most of us. His personal credentials are irrelevant. We should focus on whether the article in question clears the bar for WP:NOTABILITY, not trying to guess what other editors do for a living. Msnicki (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with all of your points, I just don't see that this article falls within them.
- "Parts catalogue" is wrong, we agree. Each of these transistors / articles needs to show independent notability. I admit, I don't (personally) know the relevance of the BS170 (never knowingly used one, don't have any on the shelf). This is different though, it's a 2N3055 after all, one of the few transistors that is individually well-known. There's nearly forty years of history behind this one particular transistor. Others of comparable note would be the 2N3819, BC107, OC71, OC28, AD161, 2N2926, 2N2222, BC548, BC184 (and their complementary partners).
- "Lazy articles" is a problem, but it's not helped by AfD. It's certainly not helped by wasting the time of the people who might be working to fix it if instead they have to faff around pulling them out of AfD instead of doing useful stuff instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
{
If we can't maintain an article, we shouldn't have an article. If you can't feed your dog, you shouldn't have a dog. Some of these partscruft articles have not had a substantive edit in 5 years and still have no more than the Digi Key description (and that's precious little). If it's such a famous transistor, there will be references for it; and no, the RCA parts catalog isn't an independent reliable source. Thanks for listing the other parts, by the way...I'd forgotten about the European style references. I'll check those out and see if they give any "who, what, when, where, why, how" information - I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with your principle that 'If we can't maintain an article, we shouldn't have an article.'. That's equivalent to deleting articles that are in a poor state, and that doesn't scale, articles have to start somewhere. A better principle might be that we don't keep articles that don't see any significant traffic. Point of fact, this article actually has a fairly reasonable amount of traffic, so it doesn't seem that this article is pointless, just badly written. I also think your 'anti parts list' idea doesn't work very well either. Clearly, if any part is notable, then we need to have it; is a Space Shuttle Solid Rocket booster not a part? Yes, and it's notable.Rememberway (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's notable if it has independent reliable sources. This deletion discussion is about some transistors, not rockets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- So transistors aren't significant in everyday life? I've got a lot more 2N3055s in this house than I have rockets (and I have a lot of rockets). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, exactly. We don't just pick out all components of things in all catalogues everywhere and add them individually with their own article, but if the notability of an individual component can be shown, as seems to be here, then we do give them their own articles.Rememberway (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- So transistors aren't significant in everyday life? I've got a lot more 2N3055s in this house than I have rockets (and I have a lot of rockets). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's notable if it has independent reliable sources. This deletion discussion is about some transistors, not rockets. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- If we can't maintain an article, we shouldn't have an article. Wrong. See WP:IMPERFECT.
- Topics are notable, not the current editing state of articles. We shouldn't have poor, trivial, articles, but we move past them by going forwards to better articles, not by deleting an article that might be trite, but still isn't incorrect or inappropriate. Personally I even support WP:Delete the junk, but these articles are nowhere near that level.
- I'm just surprised that you can't distinguish between a 2N3055 and a transistor that is real, listed but really isn't noteworthy. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you're aware of another parts list entry that should be reviewed as a PROD or AfD, please nominate it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
I just want to say thank you for your recent deletion nominations and your continued support for holding articles to the (very clear I may add) GNG guidelines. I have continually found myself frustrated in other areas (namely military history and fictional characters) by the very same problem you address in your WP:PARTS essay. I find it frustrating that some people seem to want to totally disregard GNG in cases related to their area of expertise and I know it's tough to take a stand sometimes, so thank you. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm often frustrated by parts-list articles. We will have, for example, "articles" on every size of flashlight battery that say nothing you can't read in any random battery catalog. Its hard to do research on humdrum items like individual transistor types, and really, how significant is any given type? Perhaps in the "train-spotter" sense there could be an article written as to why a particular type was thought to be necessary, what company originated it, what issues it was supposed to solve better than competitive types, what market share it gained, when it was introduced, when it was dropped from manufacturing by most companies, etc. - but realistically, that's never going to happen on the Wikipedia; the sources are buried in 50-year-old company archives that are inaccessible to amateurs and that wouldn't be citable in Wikipedia anyway because we don't do original research on primary sources. Until somebody writes the 1-volume "History of Your Favorite Spare Parts", the topic is useless here and we'd be better served by a table of some common transistor types. Even that will be tough to get going - the electronics project has been around for years and has yet to get Transistor up to GA status, let alone FA. And this is a topic that is on the projects "high priority" ranking and has been there for 5 years. There is no realistic way an article on 2NXYZ is ever going to improve. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- What amazes me is how personal the comments can get. It's just a transistor! Msnicki (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- See above about not being distinguishable from basement-dwellers. Normal people don't write encyclopedias. We may not have anyone like William Chester Minor, but that road runs past a lot of our houses. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- What amazes me is how personal the comments can get. It's just a transistor! Msnicki (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)