User talk:Andy Dingley

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


/2007 •
/2008 1 - 3
/Archive 4
/Archive 2009 January
/Archive 2009 February
/Archive 2009 March
/Archive 2009 April
/Archive 2009 May
/Archive 2009 June
/Archive 2009 July
/Archive 2009 September
/Archive 2009 October
/Archive 2009 November
/Archive 2009 December
/Archive 2010 January
/Archive 2010 February
/Archive 2010 March
/Archive 2010 April
/Archive 2010 May
/Archive 2010 June
/Archive 2010 July
/Archive 2010 August
/Archive 2010 September
/Archive 2010 October
/Archive 2010 November
/Archive 2010 December
/Archive 2011 January
/Archive 2011 February
/Archive 2011 March
/Archive 2011 April
/Archive 2011 May
/Archive 2011 June
/Archive 2011
/Archive 2012
/Archive 2013
/Archive 4
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 2014
/Archive 2015
/Archive 2016
/Archive 2017

Advice needed[edit]

Hello Andy,

I am currently trying to clean up the Diesel engine article, and I wanted to properly explain the coherence of torque and power. I was unhappy with the former unreferenced sections, so I tried to re-write them from scratch. Being someone who likes sticking to high quality sources, I did not really want to write something that was not given in the book that I used; the result (for torque and power) is this. I am not quite sure whether or not it is deemed understandable, however, I could not come up with something that is considerably better. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations? What would you do about it? Improve it, or leave it as it is? I mean, I know how the concept works, but the problem is, at University, I wasn't quite taught the English way, and there seem to be differences between English and Austrian ways of describing the same thing. I have basically asked the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, but considering your skills and experience, I think asking you too is a good idea. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but what I would try to clarify there is that torque is a measure of force, in particular, an angular force at some radial distance. As such, it is a product of energy/work, and therefore is a measure of quantity thus is independent of time. On the other hand, power is energy divided by time, and as such it is a measure of intensity. For example, I can power a flashtube with a capacitor charged to 100 joules of energy. No matter what the charging time, the energy used is always 100 joules. If I release that energy in one second, it is 100 watts of power. However, if I release that energy is 1 microsecond, it is 100,000,000 watts of power, but either way, only 100 joules of work is able to be done. If you can explain it like that, but in terms of diesel engines, I think it will better help the layperson understand. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
By the way, there sure is a huge difference. Linguistics is a hobby of mine, and while I can't speak German, Swedish, Norse, French or Italian, I can sure read them because English is made from all of them. I read somewhere that if you want to understand a peoples, their thought processes and how their minds work, first understand their language, then understand their mythology. Zaereth (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I think there is a difference. I was taught that the Newtonmetre can be used to describe mechanical work, because it has the same dimension: 1 J = 1 N m = 1 W s. Work and torque are not the same, but in this case, they are somewhat interchangable. Your example is easy to understand, you are taking a look at it from the work perspective. Let me change it to the time perspective: The capacitor is charged to 100 J. Within 1 ms, you release 100 J, resulting in 100,000 W of power. In the next "experiment", you release only 0.1 J per 1 ms (or 100 J per 1 s). Within 1 ms, you will get 100 W. What you have done is leaving the work unchanged but reducing the time to one thousandth, meaning that you perform 1000 times as much work within the same time period of 1 s. What I want to express in the Diesel engine article is that the power remains the same, but due to limited time, the engine has to perform more work; in terms of our capacitor: We want 100 W. In the first experiment, the capacitor is charged to 100 J and we have 1 s of time, which will work out just fine. In the next experiment, we still want 100 W, but we can only use half of a second, which means that we have to charge the capacitor to 200 J; it has to perform twice as much work, because there is only has half of the time available. --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 09:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would remove this section almost entirely. We're hypertext. Many readers will already understand torque, those who don't can go and read an article about it. A section in this article should be restricted to "torque, as it applies to diesel engines". So it should note that the "torque curve" (and also the efficiency curve) is flatter for diesel engines than for petrol, and explain why (a diesel's ability for retaining good efficiency at part-power settings is a large advantage over petrol, but almost never explained). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Andy, thanks for your reply. The Diesel engine's ability to retain good efficiency at low and medium load is mostly due to low charge exchange losses. An Otto cycle engine requires throttling to obtain a stable engine speed under all circumstances, however, this increases these undesired losses. This is why engineers put so much effort into getting rid of the Otto engine's throttling. But back to the torque: Diesel engines have a limited time window to perform work, due to the ignition delay: The ignition delay limits the rotational speed of the crankshaft (the fuel cannot ignite infinitely fast), and the crankshaft's speed can be expressed as time raised to the power of -1. As power is the quotient of work and time, multiplying crankshaft speed, torque ("=work") and 2×Pi results in power (crankshaft speed is raised to the power of -1, and a multiplication with a multiplicand raised to the power of -1 doesn't form a product, but a quotient.) The huge amount of torque is therefore not caused by higher efficiency or anything like that, it is much simpler: The Diesel engine crankshaft speed is limited. Very old Diesel engines prove this very well: Their chrankshaft speed is very limited, and a 13 kW Diesel engine that is limited to 150 min−1 has to produce over 800 N·m (0.8 kN·m) of torque: . Torque "correlates" with displacement, which is why very old Diesel engines are so big. Generating much power quickly is an advantage for heavy duty applications, as this results in lower fuel consumption, which is why industrial Diesel engines produce so much torque. The flat torque curves that you describe correlate with the Diesel engine, but they are not caused by the Diesel principle. Designing Otto cycle engines with similar torque curves is not a problem (and it was especially common with Eastern bloc military engines). The other way around is a bit more difficult, because of the limited time window. The result is more torque. I hope this was not too complicated or too didactic, but is it understandable that way? This is the explanation I read in most books that address this. Best regards, --Johannes Maximilian (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Stinger image[edit]

That's an M60 Field Handling Trainer, not an FIM-92 Stinger. You can tell because if you look by his thumb you can see the top of the letters M and Y on the gripstock, which is from the word "DUMMY." An FIM-92 doesn't have anything written there. Bones Jones (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Which is giving a clearer impression to the reader? I see your point, but even with that, it's a clearer image than the previous one. If that one was a trainer, we wouldn't even be able to tell. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Would you be happy (as it is now) with the trainer image and it clarified in the caption? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Well we can tell that one's not a trainer because the image is sourced to a work that says it's the first one off the production line. I have clarified the caption, I just think it's best to start the article on the Stinger with a picture of a real one. Bones Jones (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
We need to work with what we have, or can get (but the US military love photos and federal public domain is generous, so the second of those is promising). Secondly we should give the best result for the reader that we can achieve: so clarity is often more useful than perfect accuracy. Thirdly we can start to think about which would be the absolute best subject to show. But those first two still have to come before that. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
You should start the article with a picture of the real thing, not a pretty picture of something different. If I may use an analogy, Jayne Mansfield was hot, Marilyn Monroe was hotter, but they both looked a bit like each other. We don't start the article on Jayne with a photo of Marilyn, even if the photo of Marilyn is a nice photo and looks almost like Jayne anyway. Tony May (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleting a page[edit]

Hi Andy I have read your comment on my attempt to having a page created. It is my pleasure to inform you that everthing said in the content of the text. Please get back in touch on this email or call 447784081927 ZIDAGO1 (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Bare-metal server Page[edit]

Hi Andy,

I saw on your Talk page that you stated this:

There is no rule "commercial sites may not be used as references". However we do look at the quality of that reference, and the content it delivers, in relation to the promotional value with it. The Rackspace ref here is quite different, and better, than the BigStep ref. You might well find something, maybe under here: where BigStep offer something more detailed, not merely a sales page. If so, I'd support using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I've cited the API documents page. I trust that you will support me as you stated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesidie (talkcontribs) 09:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

My comment to your additions [1] [2] was "Copyvio, unclear, fails WP:NOTHOWTO and certainly misplaced. "
You added this:
"During the deploy phase, bare metal servers are allocated to Instances, server interfaces are attached to networks, disk space is allocated, operating system templates are copied, and public IP addresses are allocated to subnets."
"During the deploy phase,
... servers are allocated to Instances, server interfaces are attached to networks, disk space is allocated, operating system templates are copied, and public IP addresses are allocated to subnets."
That's a simple copy from the source web page. WP:COPYVIO. Absolutely not permissible here, we just can't do that.
Now, I could have edited that to solve the copyvio problem. But the problem is then the other problems with that addition. The text is a very generalised description of deploying any cloud-based or instance-based server, whether physical (bare metal) or virtual. It just doesn't do anything encyclopedic to explain what a bare-metal server is (i.e. what a bare-metal server is and how it differs from other means of providing resources). If such text is justified (maybe there's use in explaining generic server provisioning to those who are really unfamiliar with it) then it doesn't belong right in the lead like this. Nor is it even well-written. What does " servers are allocated to Instances" mean? I've always allocated instances to servers! What does "operating system templates are copied" mean? I've never heard of an "operating system template" and if you mean an image of one, isn't that what we just did with the instances?
Now it looks like BigStep are in the bare-metal cloud-hosting business. That's relevant. I have no problem with using BigStep as a source. But it needs to be something which is relevant to this article (and not just an excuse to add a link to one's own company). Surely BigStep have some sort of white paper online which explains the advantages of choosing their bare-metal approach for one's hosting needs? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Habits are hard to stop[edit]’re right... Acemaster77 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

They're quite easy. WP:BLOCK. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed edit on a wiki page in serious need of updating[edit]

I saw that you removed the edit on al-Julani’s wiki page but I think I might revert the edit. His wiki page is in dire need of an update and considering that I literally put in the most recent news about him (along with a reference link) I’ll probably reinstate it sometime in the future. Acemaster77 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi Andy, thanks for your input on this. You're quite right about not wanting to fight the "battle of Scunthorpe" again; but, to give the delta-quad-bot system creators some credit, that's exactly why accounts matching this pattern are put on a list for human review, rather than autoblocked. -- The Anome (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:AN. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

An obvious disruptive 2RR [3], [4] and then a misleading ANI "Nothing to do with me, guv" comment at ANI [5]? You suggested that I file an SPI, but I think ANEW or ANI would be perfectly able to cope. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to Plain weave[edit]

I reverted some of your recent changes to plain weave, specifically your removal of the section "External links". MOS:LAYOUTEL and WP:MOSSIS state that boxes to sister projects should be placed in an "External links" section, but that they should be converted to inline elements if there's no other content in that section.

In my recent edits (the creation of a "Further reading" section), I hadn't noticed that the citation in the "References" section was the full citation for partial citations in the body of the article. I moved it to a separate section to make this distinction clearer.

Let me know if you object to these changes.

- Heddles (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Of course I object. This is a perennial misreading of WP:MOS, although I recognise that is badly written and unclear. Please restore it properly. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Which part exactly do you object to? The "External links" section or the "References" section? And can you back up your objections with the appropriate sections from WP:MOS? Heddles (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LAYOUTEL Which as you've already explained it to me (thanks for that, I'm clearly such a newbie here), I thought you would at least have read first. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for offending you, that was not my intention. I have only recently started fixing what I thought were layout issues (after reading through MOS:LAYOUT), and I haven't had anyone else react negatively to the changes I've been making. I'm sorry if I came across as snarky, I was just very confused, since MOS:LAYOUTEL states: "If box-type templates are not good, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones, then consider using "inline" templates, such as {Commons category-inline} in the "External links" section, so that links to sister projects appear as list items."
In this case, the wikicommons link is the only sister project link and there are no external website links, so I believe I was correct in converting it to an inline link in a new "External links" section. What am I missing? Why should the wikicommons link be a box at the end of the article? Heddles (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said, the wording is awful. We also have it stated in at least four places, and inconsistently.
Yes, consider switching to the inline form. If the lower part of the article is cluttered, then that may be appropriate.
But the inline forms exist so that they can be used in lists, where articles link to many such projects, wikibooks, wikivoyage etc. Otherwise, we train our readers to recognise a distinctive box template as a Commons link (and Commons is by far the most common of these, and the one used most often on its own). It is thus significantly negative to switch away from using the familiar Commons box, and to use the almost always overlooked inline form.
Even worse, is the nonsensical creation of an empty External links section, just to hold entries that aren't external links. This arises from a technical issue in the use of CSS to float the box(es) to the side of the page. By sheer coincidence, no more, that last section was canonically for External links, and now the misconception that sister project links are external links has sprung up. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrongful reverting of redirect turned into a new article[edit]

Cerrolow 136 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cerrolow 136. Since you had some involvement with the Cerrolow 136 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 2A02:A03F:5C84:ED00:6158:5948:45C1:F2E5 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Section headings and anchors[edit]

You reverted my addition of an anchor to fuel oil, noting in your edit summary that 'It's a heading, it's already an anchor.' Should the heading change, e.g. to 'bunker oil', the anchor will be broken. See the documentation for Template:Anchor: The use of anchors can make for a cleaner, more efficient Wikipedia reading experience where section headings are changed—which they not infrequently are. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Then we fix the anchors. This does happen occasionally, but it's no big deal. If you want to make this clearer, then the usual practice is to add a comment, indicating that there are incoming links.
If you really want to, then use {{Anchor}} or {{Visible anchor}}. But embedding raw HTML markup into article text is pretty strongly discouraged.
'Bunker oil' would be wrong anyway. Bunker oil isn't the same thing as bunker fuel. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I did use {{Anchor}}; I subst'd it, as suggested in the template docs.

I didn't think I needed to explain that I was creating an anchor to use for an incoming link. Why else would someone create an anchor? As to whether 'bunker oil' would be an appropriate heading, I was using it as an easy example. There's a hatnote on the section saying '"Bunker oil" redirects here.' BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, choose your poisson. If you use {{anchor}} it works fine as is, except that templates (and a lot of markup) in section headings break the edit-section links. So you can subst it instead, and generate HTML. Neither of these are a good idea, when the id is the same as the section title, and they're totally superfluous (they're just generating the same ID that's there anyway). Also, what happens if someone edits it and they "update" the ID to "match" the new title? A comment is not only simpler, it's our best defence against that happening. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

ROC Operational Equipment[edit]


Have noticed you have removed a photo I uploaded due to it being a ‘duplicate’. The photo was supposed to be a duplicate as the equipment it shows is listed twice in the article as it was used for two different purposes.

I will be adding it back and moving the photo showing the Radiac Meter MkVI back where it belongs.

Alistair. Pilot25dmc (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I added text to alleviate the problem. Pilot25dmc (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't need two identical images in the same article. I don't mind what solution you find to this, so long as it avoids the duplication. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Pic sizes[edit]

Sorry Andy, I wasn't aware of that MOS on pic sizes - was going on what layout looks best avoiding orphaned pics in one corner. Regards80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem. The trouble with absolute sizes in pixels is the old web design one of "Well it looks great on my screen". For the mobile WP, I think they're ignored anyway. |upright= can help if you do need to adjust stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Obusier de 155 mm C modèle 1881[edit]

Are you in the process of translating the link for the German article on this page? Because the former link is broken.Snowdawg (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not broken, it's a WP:REDLINK. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

A little while ago I dealt with a report of yours at WP:AIV. I was actually a little surprised to see it, because I thought "Hang on, isn't Andy an administrator?" but it turns out you aren't. Have you thought of becoming one? Apart from other things that you might or might not choose to do, it would mean that you could deal with vandals right away, instead of leaving it for some administrator or other to get round to, leaving the vandals free to vandalise in the meanwhile. Just a suggestion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

RfA? I wouldn't touch that with a bargepole. Thanks for the suggestion though. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
OK. I admit I didn't totally enjoy my RfA, but it was just a few days, and fairly insignificant in proportion to the amount of time I have been an admin. However, it is of course up to you, and if you don't fancy it that's your decision. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)