User talk:Darekun
Welcome!
Hello, Darekun, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Hi :) I've actually been here a while, and had an account for ~2yr. Did I make a newbie mistake somewhere, or just finally get noticed? :J ― Darekun (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, I just noticed you didn't have any messages, so I thought I would welcome you officially. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, You commented a while ago that Power factor " Still needs attention from someone not an expert on the subject." Could you describe what you'd like to see in the article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- In great part, the problem is I'm too close to see what needs to be done. I was able to get it, but I work in electronics, and it was still somewhat esoteric to me. Perhaps the intro section should have a shorter paragraph giving the definition, with a "technically"; then rather than try to take it apart for people who don't understand it, have a separate "in layman's terms" paragraph?
- Part of the problem may be people who don't understand energy vs enthalpy. Maybe open with talking about the flow of enthalpy, without naming it as such, and only then talk about energy?
- I was thinking a WikiDragon who's not that familiar with the subject might be able to shake it up such that familiar people could clean it up properly.
- Dunno. If I'd thought of a way to fix it I would've done so :J But the presence of all the posts on the talk page not getting it is a sign of the problem.
- ― Darekun (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've reviewed the opening paragraph a few times and I'm at a loss how to simplify it. There might not be a layman's explanation that's any good. Similarly, I find most of the maths articles here are way over my head ( having only taken basic calculus (and that 30+ years ago). By the time anyone explains what a "group" or "Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory" or "Singular homology" is, for my benefit, the article would have expanded to textbook size. There's always the dodge of comparing power to filling a beer glass, with the foam representing reactive power that must be transferred, but which does no work - I've always found the beer glass analogy to be confusing, because foam collapses into liquid beer but reactive power never becomes real power. But maybe we can attract some interested attention with an eye to improvement. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- You could consider just the air in the foam to be the reactive power equivalent, but that may lose the power of the analogy. Hm, that inspires something based on the water analogy — a gadget that consumes water from a tap, but half of it just goes down the drain, so it's not "really" consumed, but it still has to go through water treatment? Maybe too far the other way.
- Anyway, I specifically meant it looks like it's "riding low" in layman-friendliness. It's written more as a leaf article from a technical subject than as something intended for consumption by someone trying to weigh buying CFLs. It really does look like someone who doesn't know electrical things in general, but put the effort in to puzzle this one out, would be helpful.
- My go-to example for abstruse leaf topics is the proof that "aleph-one == beth-null" isn't provable. That can't be layman-friendly without massive bloat. Power factor, though, I think can be.
- Maybe it'd be useful to add a section specifically about "low-power-factor devices from the consumer perspective" or the like, let it grow by the wiki magic, for transplant to the intro when it's ready? That might retain enough of the lay perspective through repeated edits.
- ― Darekun (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The project, generally, lacks review by editors who aren't subject matter experts. Though I've tried to do this sort of thing on a few articles, diving into topics like echinoderms or medieval history, trying to fill the glaringly obvious holes in articles that show up when you really don't know anything about a topic. It's actually kind of fun, till someoen raps your knuckles for invading the walled garden. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wasn't expecting to actually get someone. I was trying to not push, which is why I just mentioned it on something I was already adding.
- When I'm considering a "pedestrian edit" like that, I often check the page history, because it's a good indicator of the culture within the walled garden. If someone happened by, and saw that, they might be inclined to help. If not, after a while it'll get forgotten down the history.
- A shot in the dark, if you will. <shrug>
- ― Darekun (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- The project, generally, lacks review by editors who aren't subject matter experts. Though I've tried to do this sort of thing on a few articles, diving into topics like echinoderms or medieval history, trying to fill the glaringly obvious holes in articles that show up when you really don't know anything about a topic. It's actually kind of fun, till someoen raps your knuckles for invading the walled garden. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've reviewed the opening paragraph a few times and I'm at a loss how to simplify it. There might not be a layman's explanation that's any good. Similarly, I find most of the maths articles here are way over my head ( having only taken basic calculus (and that 30+ years ago). By the time anyone explains what a "group" or "Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory" or "Singular homology" is, for my benefit, the article would have expanded to textbook size. There's always the dodge of comparing power to filling a beer glass, with the foam representing reactive power that must be transferred, but which does no work - I've always found the beer glass analogy to be confusing, because foam collapses into liquid beer but reactive power never becomes real power. But maybe we can attract some interested attention with an eye to improvement. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)