Talk:Beaverslide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

congrats, but-[edit]

Congratulations to the editors of this article for being featured on the home page. But, "hay" is not linked, that article needs more quantitative detail about baling & storage, and this article needs performance details. Doesn't the patent have some?66.250.191.192 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hay is linked in the first sentence. I have not seen the details you are talking about, only in general terms. PumpkinSky talk 00:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Problems[edit]

  • The proper name, i.e. the patented name of "Beaverhead County Slide Stacker", and the names of the inventors must go in the first sentence.
  • In the arid regions of the western United States, ranchers and farmers discovered they did not always need to protect hay by putting it in a barn.
This wasn't a "discovery". Removed the word "discovered" and state the FACT.
Haystacks were common in Europe, even though the climate was not arid. The haystacks were thatched so that the water ran off, just as it would from a thatched roof.
  • Consequently, use of the beaverslide became very popular even into the 1990s
Confused sentence. It didn't "become popular into the 1990s". It "became popular in" .... then list the regions. Then write "Its popularity lasted until the 1990s".
  • To create a stack of loose hay with a beaverslide, a horse team or tractor will deliver loose hay to the base of the beaverslide
Surely the hay is delivered on truck or cart or wagon? Whether it is a tractor or horses providing the power is of no relevance at this point. It is enough to say "hay is delivered to the base of the stacker".
  • The hay is then raised to the top of the beaverslide by a set of poles pulled up by chains of leather or metal links hitched to another team of horses or a second tractor. A toothed basket holds the hay as it is raised to the top.[7] The hay then drops onto the stack and the moving poles return to the base.[11]
None of this gives me a clue as to how it actually works.
Is it the "set of poles" that are pulled up by the chains?
Cut the "another" from the "team of horses and the "second" from tractor. You don't need the previous mention of these things.
How does the hay drop from the basket onto the stack?

Because this is an object that relies on very basic mechanics, it requires a simple explanation in mechanical terms. I would expect words like inclined plane and pulley to occur.

Amandajm (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

free popcorn

free popcorn

Um, and what guideline do you have for any of these style suggestions? The article is new, we will continue to work on it, but your remarks are singularly ill-informed and unhelpful. And did you bother to check the sources, one of which is an excellent video, before you just start criticizing? Obviously not. Most of your ideas (no, the inventors don't have to be in the first sentence) are not in any version of the MOS I have seen; the material is sourced, your suggestions alter the nuance, and for the rest, would you care to provide some relevant sources or are you just here to be a tendentious trolling pain in the ass? And no, the hay doesn't go into a "basket"- you obviously haven't even read this article properly - it's just pushed up the slide and through the gap at the top, also the hay is usually just pushed across the field with a buckrake, again, had you bothered to review the sources you wouldn't be making these kind of remarks. Please go away. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
+1 for : Haystacks were common in Europe, even though the climate was not arid. The haystacks were thatched so that the water ran off, just as it would from a thatched roof.Consequently, use of the beaverslide became very popular even into the 1990s

--MarmotteiNoZ 01:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The source commented on the dry climate issue, and these stacks differ significantly from the thatched stacks of Europe. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Response

  • The article is about a patented object. The patent was owned. Omitting the names of the inventors, and the correct name of the object itself is both non-encyclopedic, and just plain rude, whether the MOS states it or not. This is and encyclopedia under construction. If te inventors are not in the first sentence, then the second sentence needs to be dedicated to stating who they were.
  • Please don't suggest that I have made these comments without reading the article.
The second last sentence states: "A toothed basket holds the hay as it is raised to the top".
The hay is not "just pushed up the slide through the gap at the top". Take a look at the picture on page 54 of the cited thesis: Sando, Linnea Christiana (2010) (PDF). Landscape Imprints of Haying Technology in Easter Idaho and Western Montana (M.A.). Kansas State University. Retrieved October 1, 2012.
It is clear that you, Montanabw, have not understood the technology from the description given.
  • One of the problems here is that Sando's thesis describes the container (or rack) which holds the hay as a "basket", while the writer of this article has described it simply (and inadequately) as "a set of poles pulled up by chains". The writer then goes on to use Sando's term "basket" without making it clear that the "basket" and the "set of poles" describe the same thing.
  • If a buckrake is the usually method of delivery, then this needs to be included.
  • I repeat: * In the arid regions of the western United States, ranchers and farmers discovered they did not always need to protect hay by putting it in a barn.
This wasn't a "discovery". Removed the word "discovered" and state the FACT. Talking about it as a "discovery" is simply poor expression.
Try : "In the arid regions of the western United States, it is generally not necessary for hay to be stored in a barn for protection from the weather".
  • "Consequently, use of the beaverslide became very popular even into the 1990s and spread to many western states and Canada, especially nearby parts of Idaho and Montana"
This sentence is badly expressed.
The beaverslide was not becoming popular into the 1990s. By that time it had long-since become popular and its popularity was waning. The spread to other regions occurred long before the 1990s, so that date, inserted where it is, confuses the issue.
There are two separate matters in this sentence. 1. The beaverslide became popular and its popularity spread. 2. It continued in use until the 1990s.
Becoming popular" and "continued usage" are two very different matters. The sentence needs to be deconstructed and made sense of.
  • Montanabw, you have just referred to an editor who has been around since 2006, as a "tendentious trolling pain in the ass".
As a Wikipedia editor, I generally stick to architecture, with the occasional article on painting. However, my background does extend to having written educational documents on farm machinery, turbines, aeronautics and industrial steam engines. Are you really suggesting that we should have an argument as to the mechanics of this rather simple object?
BTW, what do you imagine that you mean by "tendentious"? I think that you might have the wrong word. You might, on the other hand, apply the adjective to yourself, Montanabw, as there appear to be no reasonable explanation for your response to suggestions to improve the article.

Amandajm (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh my! Gee, I happen to have been around since 2006 as well. So I don't know squat, eh? In spite of the fact that I can drive past about a half-dozen of these gadgets within about 30 minutes from my community, where I have lived for the past 20 years? Sure, the article can always have some improvement and that includes style, (A FEW of your comments are well-taken, the rest are just being a jerk I tweaked a little bit of the article by the way, haven't time to deal with it in detail) but you, my friend, are basically trying to just run down other people with your snotty "suggestions". My advice: You think it sucks? Get off your ass and fix it then. Review the sources, contribute content, upgrade and tweak the style. You know: real work. If other editors here think you've improved it, it stays. If we don't, then it's WP:BRD time and we discuss. But sitting around and bitching is a waste of everyone's time. Put up or shut up. Montanabw(talk) 05:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
When it comes to dealing with erroneous, misleading and badly written material, I have several choices. I can indeed rewrite that material. On the other hand, I can point out the problems, and leave it for the people who are working on the page to fix.
Why have I chosen the latter option in this case?
Because you, Montanabw, can drive past half-a-dozen of these gadgets in 30 minutes.
You have the advantage of local knowledge. If you want to be informed about the terminology that the locals use to describe the parts of the machine, then you only have to ask. In not rewriting parts of this article, I am simply respecting the fact that the authors have local knowledge.
You have before you all the information which I do not have.
But, by your invitation, I will have a go, dependent upon the sources provided.
I use British spelling by habit, so please correct it, when it doesn't conform.
Amandajm (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


Excellent approach to dive in and help, too bad it has to be with a superior, arrogant attitude and the exaggeration inherent a statement such as " erroneous, misleading and badly written." In the future, I highly recommend you show a bit of AGF and say something like, "Pardon me, but I was wondering if suggestions X, Y and Z would be helpful additions/improvements to this article..." instead of your above approach, which I would sum up as you essentially saying, "you people are morons and this article sucks." (tsk, tsk, really, if you've been here since 2006, you KNOW that's WP:BAIT to start a fight) As for what I can see or ask about in 30 minutes by a trip over to the Avon Cafe, the problem is that anything I add from my own knowledge is immediately dismissed with horrified cries of "WP:OR! "WP:OR!" What I CAN do is clarify when I notice inaccuracies made by others, (the beaverslide itself being made mostly of flat planks or slatted steel, poles being used for the frame) but even I have to take the time to be sure my corrections align with the source cited and if the source is wrong, than I too have the burden of finding a more accurate source. Montanabw(talk) 03:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
What, more rudeness?
Montanabw, review the entire section above.
  • It commenced with the heading Problems, and I listed them.
  • In response, I was referred to as making comments that were
  1. "singularly ill-informed and unhelpful",
  2. as being "a tendentious trolling pain in the ass"
  3. as not having looked at the sources
  4. and told to "go away"
  • My subsequent edit pointed out the problems in more definite terms, and objected to being referred to in an insulting manner.
  • You subsequently told me that I was
  1. "a jerk"
  2. and accused me of "running people down" with "snotty suggestions"
  • After you twice responded with insults, then it became time to tell you that the Problems referred to amount to "erroneous, misleading and badly written material". And working on the article.
Should I be surprised that you are still being rude?
Get this:
  • I have not the slightest doubt that you can now improve upon what I have done, and with local knowledge correct any errors I have introduced.
My initial pointing out of the problems in the Introduction and the description was with an aim to getting someone with local knowledge (like yourself) to do it.
  • Even without looking for more sources, there were ways of improving the article.
I have no doubt you shall improve it further.
  • Perhaps you could work on improving your manner while you are about it.
Understand this: attacking a a person in the manner that you have attacked me is discrimination and is based on prejudice. Some of your other comments amount to bullying.
  • I know what I know about machinery because I have been taught by farmers, boiler attendants, motor mechanics and the like. Men with dirty hands and solid knowledge.
The aggression, the insults, the "running people down" and the "snotty comments" are entirely one sided.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Excuse me, Montanbw, but I am totally cracked up at the thought of you commencing a criticism with:
"Pardon me, but I was wondering if suggestions X, Y and Z would be helpful additions/improvements to this article..."
I never would have thought you could be so polite........ ROTFL.....
Amandajm (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
BTW
You are hesitant to add what might be considered OR.
One way to get around this is to reference particular pictorial illustrations of what you are referring to. The illustration then becomes a "primary source". Provided you don't draw conclusion, you can cite a primary source.
So you write "In later beaverslides, the slide itself was sometimes made of slatted steel". (ref) Brady, Agricultural machinery, p. 75, plate 19. (1975) (ref)
Even though Brady hasn't stated such in words, the pic, occurring within in a "published source" serves as a reference.
The use of that sort of source for an issue that is not political, or a touchy, is most unlikely to raise criticism.
Amandajm (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, with all due respect, you can once again quit thinking of yourself as perfect and everyone else as too stupid to breathe your air, which is clearly your tone. As for rude, I don't start it, but if others such as yourself do, don't be shocked that you get it back as good as you give. And really, don't give me the "I know machinery" because you know "Men with dirty hands and solid knowledge." Your implication is clearly this somehow makes you superior?? So what, true of a lot of people; I grew up on a ranch and am a 4th generation Montanan, though in my family we used mechanized haying equipment and put up "small squares" for the most part, so I've never worked on a beaverslide haying crew, and need to back up info with research like anyone else. I just live near an area where some of them are still used. Montanabw(talk) 16:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

New inro[edit]

A beaverslide is a tall agricultural structure made of wooden poles and planks used for raising hay to build haystacks of loose, unbaled hay stored outdoors that is fed as feed for livestock. The beaverslide consists of a frame supporting an inclined plane up which a load of hay is pushed to a height of about 30 feet, before dropping through a large gap into the frame, creating a successively taller stack with each load. The resulting loaf-shaped haystacks can be up to 30 feet high, can weigh up to 20 tons, and could last up to five or six years. It was invented in the early 1900s, and was first called the Beaverhead County Slide Stacker, after its place of origin, the Big Hole Valley in Beaverhead County, Montana. The name was quickly shortened to "beaverslide."

  • Deleting the names of the inventors, while still stating that it was invented, and the aprox date and the precise location is an inappropriate way to treat the inventors, whose names are known.
  • You have replaced a clear statement of what the thing is and its purpose with a circuitous first sentence.

To look at the sentences in detail:

  • The word "machine" is correct. It is absolutely precisely correct. A machine is something that facilitates work in its simplest, scientific form
The simple machines are: inclined plane (ramp), lever, wheel and axle, screw, pulley, wedge.
A machine doesn't have to power itself- all it has to do is perform one of these functions. Since this object has moving parts that perform the work of lifting a load, it is classified as an "agricultural machine", not simply a "structure".
Objects as simple as a spade are scientifically classified as "machines", except that in common parlance we use the word "tools". But here, you can't get beyond the word "machine, because it is more complex than a simple "tool" and has moving parts.
  • Secondly, the first sentence is full of repeated words:
"hay to build haystacks of loose, unbaled hay". You really don't need to explain here that the hay is loose and unbaled. You've said "hay" and "haystack". That's enough.
"fed as feed" is really bad! "used as feed" is OK.
  • dropping through a large gap into the frame. The hay drops beyond the frame, not into the frame. Is this just a typo?
"through a large gap" seems unnecessary. It's arrived at the top of the ramp/slide and has nowhere further to go.
  • Yeah, people can work out that the stack gets bigger with each load that is dumped! You don't need to state this in the intro.

Amandajm (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So I worked on it the way I saw it, improved some things, but other things done hastily, tired, in the middle of the night, and now you can then edit the way you see it. You don't need to be so deliberately hurtful (as you have been from the outset here) and bullying by making a point by point treatise of your views. As I said, just get off your ass and edit. Most of your actual work wasn't too bad, as for the crap that the names of the inventors being "Mandated" to appear in the lead, it isn't. Their names are mentioned in the body, that's all that's neededMontanabw(talk) 16:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are you so determined not to have the names of the inventors in the lead?
You have the date, a very exact location for the invention etc. Then why not the names of the inventors? Why trot out the Wikipedia manual of Style to prove something wrong that is so clearly appropriate, whether it is mandate or not?
You are now down to criticising my use of points for clarity. How does one indicate precisely which things need correction without a list?
I really object to having my manner described as "bullying" by someone who has directed a number of insults at me.
You are once again inviting me to make improvements. The only solid improvement that I can make is to reinstate my Introductory paragraph which a) describes the object correctly as "a machine". b) states the purpose briefly. c) gives the names of its inventors.
You seem to have some idea that my purpose is to diminish you, your knowledge and your contribution. This isn't the case.
You and I could work effectively if you accept my contribution, which, because of my particular background and experience, happens to be expressed in a more academic and literary manner than your own, but, at grass roots, not a more knowledgeable one, because this is much more your area of expertise than mine. The fact that I know f-all about bee-keeping or making cheese would not prevent me from correcting the grammar or expression in those articles, simply because I am good at grammar, and literary expression because I am required to be.
Many of the most interesting and useful articles are contributed to Wikipedia by people who are expert at trades or farming skills, and who want to write about them from their own vast knowledge, and have little or no way of finding references to facts that they know so well, except commercial publications. I don't know of any good way to get around this problem!
Amandajm (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Ack, you're doing it again; you quite clearly are upset at what I say to you, but you are utterly clueless how you are coming across here -- which is as a troll and a bully, to say nothing of unbelievably arrogant and condescending. If you think I'm being mean, then look in the mirror. First you are mean to the lead editor who created a DYK as if a brand new article should already be FA or something, which is rather unkind, then when you are called on your attitude, you attack by arguing that you are smarter and better than everyone else. That's being a bully. The only way to confront a bully is to call them on their shit, and that is precisely what I'm doing here. If you think I'm being mean to you and want to play the victim, fine, but apparently you have no idea how you're coming across; you're getting nothing worse than what you threw out, and if you don't like how it feels, then examine your attitude. Let me provide a few excerpts, by no means comprehensive, of how you have been rude and hurtful. Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  1. "You and I could work effectively if you accept my contribution, which, because of my particular background and experience, happens to be expressed in a more academic and literary manner than your own..."
    OK, Jeesus H. Christ, do you see how rude that is? You just implicitly said, "I'm much smarter and better educated than you are, you obviously uneducated hick from the sticks?" Puh-leeze. We both know that on the internet, no one knows you're a dog. I'm not going to trade real world credentials with you because it's a waste of time and unverifiable unless one reveals personally identifying information, which I choose to minimize on wikipedia. If you've got a PhD from Harvard, goody for you. You're still a jerk.
  2. "When it comes to dealing with erroneous, misleading and badly written material..."
    This is a DYK article, and it's low-hanging fruit to nitpick first drafts, which this article is. You added material that was helpful, but you were just so damn rude about it. My own set of edits to your overall helpful expansion work are essentially first draft work as well. And you have to be rude about those as well. It's wikipedia. If you have never reread a first draft of your own and cringed, then went in and fixed stuff, then truly, oh Godlike one, why do you bother editing wikipedia if you are so perfect? Just write it in the heavens, so all can benefit from your glory.
  3. "I know what I know about machinery because I have been taught by farmers, boiler attendants, motor mechanics and the like. Men with dirty hands and solid knowledge."
    Okay...Apparently you have to be superior in EVERY way? You've explained that you are smarter, more "academic" and more erudite than I, some mere "local", now you also want to show you are also superior because you have associated with people in the working class? Oh please. I haven't questioned if you know something about mechanics; I've questioned if you are a troll or just a tendentious editor, per next item:
  4. "...you have just referred to an editor who has been around since 2006, as a "tendentious trolling pain in the ass"."
    Yup, I sure did, because guess what? Once again, you clearly want to imply that you are my superior in some form, and that, therefore, I should kiss your amazing ass. But let's take a look at the stats: I created a named account at the end of March 2006, you in April, 2006. I've actually been here longer than you, but as we're only about 20 days apart, so I won't quibble. Now, on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count I rank 868 with 43.942 edits. You've done OK, but you rank 2240, with an edit count of 22,500. I've kicked your ass in that department. Now editcountitis does include work like vandal reverts and various wikignoming, so it is only the start: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count I'm on the list with 164 new articles (I've actually started 165, but there's a server lag), the toolserver says you created 61, though I will admit some of mine were quickie stubs and disambigs. Now, let's look at toolserver stats: It shows, basically that I've edited around 1000 more unique articles and more edits per article overall, but your percentage of article edits to the drama page edits is a bit better than mine (61% me and 69% you), so I'll call it close enough to be roughly equal. As for quality articles, looking at your talk page and mine, you appear to have an edge on FAs, I have the edge on GAs. I don't know how many of "your" have been TFA, but several of "mine" have, most recently last week. We each have a clear topic we prefer to work on and lean toward articles within our primary area of interest.
  • So at the end of the day, you have ZERO grounds to claim some form of great superiority over either PumpkinSky or myself, and this attitude that you are so superior is why you're getting it from me with both barrels. You can further make appropriate edits where we have no disagreement (yes, the same word should not appear twice in a sentence, we all have flaws, that's one of mine). we can start a new section below and confine ourselves solely to points of disagreement (i.e. Parenthetical statements and inventor names in the lead) I loathe bullies, I'm sick and tired of tendentious wikipedia editors, and if you think you aren't guilty of these crimes, well, I guess you can lead a horse to water... Montanabw(talk) 23:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
OK! I'm not going to read all that has been written above. And I won't reply to it all except to note that making a list of problems found in an article that has achieved "front page" (for whatever reason) doesn't constitute an attack or a discourtesy on an editor.
Neither does the fact that the article is "new" prevent it from being the subject of scrutiny and critique. If an article is of sufficient interest when it achieves front page (even if it is new and a DYK) then editors may hone in from all directions and make changes or suggestions. As it happens, the subject of this article was interesting to me, so I read the whole thing, and made suggestions.
Re intro: I think that the word "device" is a very good compromise between "structure" and "machine'.
I have put the names of the inventors back into the introduction. The introduction needs to summarise the main points of the article. The identities of people who invented this device are among the most significant points made in the body of the article. You may have come up with some reason for not putting their names in the intro, but whatever the reason is, it isn't good enough. Omitting their names is bad manners. If their descendants are still farming in that region, they would probably agree. However, if you absolutely insist on being rude to your Montana neighbours, it's on your head, not mine!
I won't be responding further on this talkpage, as I have just taken this off my watchlist If you want to talk more, you know where to find me.
Amandajm (talk) 08:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL. So you expect me to read all your missive and you refuse to read mine? I am removing the names of the inventors because a) they aren't famous inventors, it was a one-off deal, so there is no particular significance to including them in the lead, and b) the lead is a SUMMARY, their names are in the body of the text. Nothing rude about it. (And also geographically ignorant: people in Beaverhead County are a fair distance from me, a good 2-3 hour drive, hardly "neighbors" other than in the sense of living in the same state.) But clearly, if you have indeed taken this off your watchlist, then you're not even going to notice if I change things. Montanabw(talk) 19:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beaverslide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)