User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 December

• 4
• Archive 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

ANI notice

Seeing as you're the individual who has been labelling redirects of material established as unencyclopic as vandalism, you should probably be aware of WP:ANI#Advice, please?. Additionally, consider this a final warning on misusing Twinkle rollback; seeing as one can no longer be de-Twinkled separately, the next time will result in a block. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion of 30k articles is vandalism. Doing it again within minutes of reversion is edit warring and vandalism. Citing an 18 month old AfD is no excuse.Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is and is not vandalism is quite clearly defined by intent. You know this full well, and having been warned about it I would hope that you would refrain from doing it again. If not, then the outcome is likewise clearly defined. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of vandalism now? Or else what is the basis for your threatened block? I do not appreciate threats like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTVANDALISM. A good-faith edit accompanied by a comment, grounded in consensus for our processes, on the talk page is most assuredly not vandalism. It is not vandalism the second time, either, especially when accompanied by an edit summary which reads "please do not make unfounded accusations of vandalsim" [sic]. WP:TW#Abuse makes it clear what should be expected if an editor uses Twinkle's anti-vandalism features to roll back edits which are not vandalism. I am making you aware that, having twice done so quite deliberately, a third time will be met by a block on your account until such point as you can demonstrate that you can edit collaboratively without labelling others' good-faith edits with one of the community's most negative terms. If you do not appreciate being "threatened" into compliance with our guidelines on community interaction then do not fragrantly break them. Simples. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Something is wrong here. Perhaps I need some more background info.

I have seen many edits by Andy Dingley and many edits by Chris Cunningham and have always considered both to be good editors, neither vandals or prone to false accusations of vandalism. So I looked into this further.

Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dieselpunk_%283rd_nomination%29 (referenced above as "established as unencyclopic") I am quite puzzled. One delete and two keeps, relisted, one merge and six keeps, and the result was "delete?"

Then I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_14#Dieselpunk_.283rd_nomination.29 and saw 14 votes to overturn and 8 votes to endorse and the result was... AfD closure to delete endorsed???

Could it be that all the overturn votes were weak? Nope. Plenty of good, policy-based arguments both ways.

Could someone please explain to me what is going on here? Is this another "totally ignore consensus" case like the pending changes fiasco?

Also, how is it that it exists today? Was it re-created, and if so, is it substantively the same as the version discussed in the AfD and DR?

Given the fact that there does not appear to be any actual evidence that this has been established as being encyclopedic and the fact that the deletion review was one year and five months ago, I would very much like to see a good reason for the merge from Chris Cunningham.

On the other hand, I would also like to see a good reason from Andy Dingley for labeling the merges as vandalism. It really looks to me like they are a result of a good-faith disagreement about how to apply policy. I don't think Chris was within policy (this opinion may change with new information / explanation I asked for above) but vandalism? Sorry. I don't buy it.

Finally, let's look at the threat of a block. It looks like a block is being threatened purely because of the vandalism comment in the edit summary. As I wrote above, I don't think the merge was vandalism, but I also don't think that it was totally unreasonable to mistakenly conclude that it was. The rules say that any such block would have to be made by an uninvolved admin, and I really don't see that as happening. It is far more likely that the uninvolved admin would steer the both of you towards dispute resolution.

So for now, can we stop the threats and the accusations, all calm down, and talk this over? And can we leave the page at the last stable version while we do? And can we explain to poor ignorant Guy what it is he is missing here? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that I was wrong to label this as vandalism. As Chris has linked, WP:NOTVANDALISM is quite specific that this particular circumstance shouldn't be regarded as such. I still don't like these actions, I'd still undo them. The question of which button I use to do so seems relatively unimportant, although I know how admins do so love these trivial, but provable, points when they're trying to organise a witchburning.

This isn't an issue over article notability. I think it is, EurekaLott clearly doesn't - but not so much that I had bothered to restore it after the AfD. My actions are far more about editors wiping 30k articles, with large pageviews, on a personal whim. Using stale and contentious AfDs is still no excuse. I'd also note that the two main voices arguing for deletion were EurekaLott and Wolfkeeper, an editor so unable to work in a collegiate way that he was indeffed twice for it, his sock too.

AfD would be reasonable, so would CSD. Quite probably the article isn't in a state at present that's really supportable, but it is very far from such an obvious non-notable topic (and that's the only reason to delete) that would warrant this. 61 cites? Even if 90% were to fail scrutiny, that's still enough to defend against deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's make clear here that the sole reason for the warning was that Twinkle's vandalism rollback is very specifically to be not used for non-vandalism edits. That issue is orthogonal to the main issue at ANI. I've worked collaboratively with Andy on other articles. Regarding the main ANI issue, both the AfD and the DRV are strong closes against weight of numbers: there are simple and strong arguments for not having a separate article here which are rebutted by neither the article content nor the AfD discussion. Editors are not at liberty to simply discard the result of these discussions, or at least are not expected to edit war when doing so. Anyway, better keeping the rest of this at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning/threatening ANI/block for this is quite obviously an over-reaction. On its face - the whacking of 30k of info from an existing article certainly appears as vandalism and would thereby be justified to use a rollback on. Without an intimate knowledge of the AfD history - the rollback is appropriate. Chris - you are un-necessarily pigeon-holing by trying to make it a point of contention and turning it into a federal case. That combined with the threatening tonality expressed here is not conduct that reflects well on you. That being said - it is a separate issue from the AfD history which does indeed read backwards from the results. But the warn has no legitimate foundation and needs to be retracted. As an aside, Andy - Restore in TW would have the same end result and would avoid all this unnecessary drama and posturing by folks with 40lb Badge Syndrome for ANI. Srobak (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Might I humbly suggest that you both apologize to each other -- without any backhanded comments about witchhunting or edit warring this time -- shake virtual hands and make a fresh start? Group hug optional. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That would clearly be in the best interests of the project, so I'm happy to oblige. Yes, accusations of vandalism are a Big Stick locally, and I was wrong to make them. So, Grog all round! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How about comments describing other editors as "deceitful" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on ANI, the comment in question was a half-truth by any reading. Characterising it as "deceitful" was rather strong and obviously didn't help to deflate the existing drama, and for that I apologise. But it's apples and oranges next to what amounts to a procedural warning regarding tool use where the expected recourse for misuse is spelled out in the tool's documentation. But yes, this was an awful lot of drama between two grown-ups and I'd very much like to leave it on good terms. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "without any backhanded comments this time" are you having trouble understanding? You already got in your shots multiple times, as did Andy. This is not the time or place to rehash them. Might I once again humbly suggest that you apologize for what you did while remaining silent on what Andy did? --Guy Macon (talk)

My bad. Yes, I'm sorry. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kyle Roberts

Hello Andy Dingley, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kyle Roberts, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is AFC, A7s are kept so that they can be improved, if this was mainspace i'd delete. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This was really tagged on the basis of being a vandal's creation, from some other cleanup today.

Nice to know that we have to keep this and Jacky Daw with Maw and Paw (along with a squillion other Beano strips), but Dieselpunk has to go. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pune pilot analysis plan

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Britain (film)

Thanks for cueing me in on a very interesting merchandising of the Battle of Britain as I was completely unaware that Dinky had pioneered such "tie-in" marketing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

I don't think they did pioneer it - it was Corgi, their main competitor, who had already done so. Most famously with the James Bond Aston Martin, but also with a Monkeemobile and a Yellow Submarine. Dinky needed to play "catch up" in a hurry and signed a deal for the Gerry Anderson range and all of the (hugely popular) Thunderbirds / Captain Scarlet models. Word in Liverpool back then was that they'd paid well over the odds for it, as they saw it as their only hope to catch up. They were keen to do more tie-ins, but mould development was a terribly slow job back then before CAD and they were limited by simply how fast they could make a new model, especially as they were busy on the Thunderbirds. The BoB film wasn't perhaps the most obvious for a tie-in, although shooting Jerries in school playgrounds was a popular pastime back then, now forgotten. Most importantly though, Dinky already had the models for a BoB tie-in, they just needed to print branded boxes. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a plethora of posters, store "pop-ups" and other Dinky promotions that did tie-in with the Battle of Britain although I cannot find any information as to whether these were actually authorised, although I presume the use of logo and specific film material tends to bolster the belief that there was some collaboration and that the items were released during the initial promotional campaign that accompanied the film. The first Spitfire diecast (Dinky # 710 or #719) was fitted with a "working motor" to spin the prop, while the Stuka (#721) had a "bomb release mechanism" that was triggered from a button, and the bomb could be outfitted with "caps" to make a bang. The Spitfire was reissued without the electrical motor under a new model number (741). Both Spit and Stuka were continually in the Dinky catalogue for years, and are "hot" items in modelling and diecast collecting circles. Thanks again for prodding me to look beyond the usual hurried reaction to an IP. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

The Spitfire, I think the Bf109, and also the Seaking helicopter, all had the electric motor. It only had a two-pole rotor so had to be flick-started.

Our family haulage business used to haul scrap metal around Liverpool, including the Binns Road factory. I had loads of Meccano as a kid, but usually with painting faults on it, all picked out of the scrap bins. I had plenty of Dinkys too, but usually had to assemble and paint them myself! Now I'm selling off a few of my Dad's old ones (see Commons) into the collector auction circuit - some are worth 100s, if they're pre-war and in good condition. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

According to one source, Corgi's The Saint's Volvo P1800 (originally released in 1962) was the first "tie-in" diecast and was a 1965 issue. The Dinky Spit, in production from 1969 to 1977, had to be remade when the D23 battery that was originally supplied, was no longer available, making the original, if battery was indeed, located, another bit of a rarity. I am interested in one particular Dinky diecast, #735 Gloster Javelin that was introduced in 1956. If a biography that I have been reading about the infamous Canadian scientist Gerald Bull who created the Project Babylon supergun, is accurate, it led to a bizarre supersonic test. In an earlier period of his career, Bull was involved with the ill-fated Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow as a junior designer/engineer at CARDE, the Canadian Armament and Research Development Establishment. His task was to test the supersonic capabilities of the design and he came up with an intriguing means. Purchasing a Dinky Javelin which had a similar delta wing planform to the Arrow, he mounted it on a projectile and fired it from his gun, managing to take shadowgraph photos of it clearly showing supersonic shock cones. Bull then used the same method to work on the Avro Arrow, discovering an instability that led to the use of a stability augmentation system. However, his work on the Arrow was soon cancelled. Know anything about this intriguing use of a diecast model? FWiW, I have 6,000 models myself, more than most model/hobby shops and I am slowly coming to the realization that I have run out of time to build them all, never mind keep collecting the toys. I am going to claim victory in the "first to the post with the most toys" sweepstakes, and start disposing of the collection. My wife already has been pointing out the "Hoarder" television series ... Bzuk (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

I find the Javelin story amusing, but incredible. Supersonic wind tunnel models have to be scrupulously smooth, or you get shock waves from things that shouldn't give rise to shock waves. I've never made wind tunnel models, but I have made supersonic nozzles (transverse flow gas lasers) and back in the days before CNC they were an utter pain to make - worse than gas-flowing racing car ports. You had to hand file & hack them to shape, then polish carefully with lots of emery and elbow grease. Dinky models were always full of panel detail, or underbodies that didn't even try to be realistic. Nor would the leading edges have been realistically sharp.

My favourite Javelin story is still the one about Pilot Office Prune trying to start his kite one day when it was being recalcitrant. This led to a build up of AVPIN fumes in the fuselage. The log book entry carefully recorded: 9:00 First engine start - difficult. 9:05 Second engine start - aircraft exploded. Apparently the fumes ignited and the overpressure blew the skin off the forward fuselage, leaving the framing perfectly intact. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cute, but basic physics isn't a strong suit for idjits. As for the Dinky toy Javelin, apparently, the windtunnel models that were to be shot out of Gerald Bull's makeshift cannon launcher were exactly as you described, beautiful pieces of polished metal, but he was in competition with another scientist to get results. He just couldn't wait for the real models and resorted to a bit of "down-and-dirty" testing. He bought some Dinky toys that he was going to jam onto the top of a sabot. By using the roughly similar Javelin, he was hoping to test a delta wing configuration at supersonic speeds. The offshoot was that he was so proud of his unorthodox test that he actually prepared a letter complete with photographs that he sent off to the Meccano Company, advising that the testing of a supersonic fighter was based on a Dinky Toy. Reportedly, the Dinky Toy ads for a time featured this event. I know this all sounds utterly unbelievable, but author Dale Grant documents the Dinky model testing in his book, Wilderness of Mirrors: The Life of Gerald Bull (1991) on pp. 50–51. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Percy

I think that this is too tenuous. You could say something similar about several other types of 0-4-0ST, such as the NBR G Class. If you look at pictures of Percy in the books, the tank seems to be cylindrical - curving all the way around the boiler, even underneath, which the tank of Trojan does not do. Awdry's own model - upon which the drawings were based - was a freelance design. Unless a reliable source explicitly states that Awdry (or Dalby) used Trojan as a direct inspiration for Percy, I don't think that Percy should be mentioned in either GWR 0-4-0ST or GWR No. 1340 Trojan. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I put it there mostly to stop the "Percy is a ..." content coming back. If you object particularly then remove it, but I think it's sufficiently vague at present that there's no real issue.

EdJogg is the obvious person to ask, but AFAIK, Wilbert's original Percy model was acknowledged as having pulling influences from many places, definitely including the GWR Avonside saddle tanks, and this is citable from Wilbert himself (in the big expensive book of Thomas bio that I can't afford). Percy's saddle tank, even as a kid, struck me as being bizarrely deep and looking more like a Cornish boiler. Still, at least he's not Ivor the Engine. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It seemed weird that magnesium wasn't mentioned in the flash point article...all fuels in that article. Magnesium came up in the article on autoignition or whatever, but I wasn't sure what to do. Either way, it's nice to see that Wikipedia works. Keep it up! Boredanddrunk (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Flash point is like flammable vs inflammable. Everyone uses it, almost no-one ever uses it correctly.

I'm now a little unsure about the ignition temperature for Elektron. Its combustion temperature (once lit) is much higher than other alloys, but I really need to check if it's similarly easy to start it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Valve

If you think this should be protected now or any time, don't hesitate to let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it was just hit-and-run, not persistent. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Signature image processing article

Hi, I noticed that you commented at the Signature image processing article talk page within the last few months. About a week ago I indicated that I plan/propose to roll this article into a broader article on weld monitoring, testing and analysis, roughly per the outline in my August post. In case haven't been watching the article but would like to give input on this I thought I'd drop you this note. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not touching it with a bargepole - Wtshymanski's the expert, he'll no doubt "help you out" in his inimitable manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You might want to prepare by doing this search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Wtshymanski&ns4=1 -Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wtshymanski also supported the change. Thanks to all. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I came to notify you that the matter is now at AFD and see that the topic is familiar. It's looking like a trainwreck currently so it would help to have editors involved like you who understand the topic. Warden (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Brahms's/Airy's law in River

Andy, thanks for so quickly finding the reference for Brahms's (or Brahms', but not Brahm's) law. Had I been more observant, I would have noticed the citation in the sentence following my citation-needed tag. Your citation was better, because it actually pulls it up from Google Books.

I reworked the section a bit, to clarify the law and to correct what I think was an incorrect example. I will discuss this a bit more at Talk:River. Peter Chastain (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Express boiler listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Express boiler. Since you had some involvement with the Express boiler redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunbeam

I stop contributing. It makes no sence because there is always the risk that someone makes changes because he~/she thinks his/her view on matters is better than the view of the contributor Thundercloud (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, get over yourself. It's a good image of the car. On the car page, I moved it to prominence in the masthead infobox. It's also in use on the Sunbeam page, where I moved it into the correct order. There's a possibility of using it for Malcolm Campbell and the Sunbeam Manitou too. For Henry Segrave though, it's far too tenuous. He just didn't have that much to do with it. If there's to be a car image on Segrave's page, it should be of the Golden Arrow or the 1000hp Sunbeam long before this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Chicken and the Pig, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Undid revert, warned user not to label content disputes as vandalism. It appears that ClueBot and STiki both misidentify this as vandalism, despite it being substantively the same in tone and content as existing sections. Whether the existing sections should be written that way is another question, well worth discussing on the talk page, but this is best left for humans, not bots. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Bernard Laurence Hieatt

Did you see my note re copyvio on Talk:Bernard Laurence Hieatt? Can you assist in cleaning this up? There seems to be few sources. ww2censor (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Saw it, but haven't had a chance to look yet. I assume that it's fixable by editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. It should be fixable. I have not had time to review it properly either. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diary of Sacco and Vanzetti

Doing my searches and finding articles such as this about the film, I used that source and others to improve the article.. turning the original unsourced stub into a decent C-class article. I invite you to The Diary of Sacco and Vanzetti to see if the changes from this to THIS meet your concerns toward the original's lack of content and sources. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know, "AfD should not be used as a substitute for improving the article"; but I still feel good when an AfD does lead to this kind of improvement to an iffy article. (Contrary to rumor, we evialllll deletionists don't enjoy stomping on puppies.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons edit

Hi Andy. I removed a link to a blog on the Creative Commons article that you then restored. I don't have an issue with using blogs per se, but the link in question went to an "all posts tagged as" rather than a specific blog post or article. If you'd like to restore a link to the blog, could you point the link to a specific post that supports the text? Generally, links to searches are sub-optimal. Thanks, Gobonobo ^{T C} 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Hey Andy, long time no see. Any idea what happened here? —SW— ^chat 06:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AppLabs_(2nd_nomination) Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Strange, I read through that AfD yesterday but completely missed the part where you said you added the other articles. Should Sashi Reddi be deleted then? It's not clear from the AfD. —SW— ^soliloquize 14:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well clearly I'd delete it... Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andy Dingley. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steaz.
Message added 22:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons terminology

It's probably WP:COMMONNAME, but "detonation" is inaccurate with regards to nuclear weapons. I'll have to dig for reliable sourcing on the matter, but I'm on a couple of military forums with nuclear-weapons experts among the members, and one thing they always repeat is that a nuclear explosion is not a detonation, it is an initiation, because it's a nuclear device being initiated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Then cite it. Nuclear weapons are initiated certainly, but this is something done to them (look up "Blue Stone" or "Zippo"), not something that they then do. Detonation (as distinct from other forms of explosion) implies on the production of a shock wave (i.e. a V_det fast enough to do so). As someone who spent time modelling not just nukes and X ray lasers, but the actual conditions that Excalibur later performed a physical test for, then I can tell you that detonation is by far the better term here. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I'll take your word for it then (even if Stuart Slade would vehemently disagree!). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Hand grenade

Hi Andy. I think you're mistaken. Grenade is the lead article for Category:Grenades and Hand grenade is the lead article for Category:Hand grenades. Hand grenade doesn't need to be in the Grenades category, since it's already included through the Hand grenades category. Pburka (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As a usability issue, we fully categorize articles (and thus also the lead articles of categories). We (broadly) duplicate this categorization onto the categories themselves. It's a general behaviour for WP that many readers trying to browse categories for navigation are unfamiliar with MediaWiki, don't understand the distinction between categories and articles, and benefit particularly from having articles well categorized, even if some things are also implied through category membership.

MediaWiki categorization is a navigation assistant for browsing readers, not a propositional calculus defining an ontology.

In particular:

• Lead articles of categories are categorized.
• Lead articles of categories are also self-categorized, with a cat sort [[Category:Foo| ]] to sort them to the top.
• Transitive categorization (i.e. membership of supercategories that is already implied through other categories) should often be preserved. This is especially the case for lead articles. It is also the case for articles that are either "important" or have some other clear functional relationship with an implied category. If readers might expect to find that child within a parent (or grandparent) category, then it should appear there - even if it can also be implied through logic. We use categories to allow our readers to navigate, not to make them perform exercises in logical inferencing. This is a very common editing mistake on Wikipedia.
• If in doubt, use the categorization. Excess categorization is trivial, but missing categorization often represents a future difficulty for a browsing reader. We are here for the readers.

Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you quoting policy? If so, it seems to contradict Wikipedia:Categorization:

• Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Eponymous categories and Non-diffusing subcategories below.

(Emphasis mine.) Category:Hand grenades appears to be neither an eponymous category nor a non-diffusing category. Pburka (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not quoting policy, I'm trying to build an encyclopedia. Categorization is complicated (hey, read my book!) and it's never going to be covered entirely and completely by one short statement in a minor editing guideline. Note also that WP:Categorization isn't even a policy and also that, per usual WP nomenclature, Category:Hand grenades is eponymous. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do admit that the section on eponymous categories could be clearer. However it seems to be referring to topic categories, whereas Category:Hand grenades is a list category. The eponymous category would be Category:Hand grenade, and it would be a topic category for things related to hand grenades. Wikipedia's guidelines are fairly clear that Hand grenade should not be in Category:Grenades (or Category:Weapons or Category:Tools for that matter). If you disagree with this I propose that you establish a consensus to change the guidelines. Pburka (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You have misread this guideline enough to completely reverse even what little it does say. Nowhere does it claim that the relation between the two categories would be a reason to remove the article from categorization, but rather a reason why sometimes (and not here) the category is removed from all possible categorizations.

Distinguishing "list" and "eponymous" categories in this way is also dangerous, as this is not a distinction that will be widely understood, hence making a user interface vary its behaviour on that basis is at risk of becoming more confusing than helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sliding pillar suspension

Hi Andy - I believe the system was used on some of the front wheel drive Bucciali cars where it was mounted very much like the Sizaire type, beneath a leaf spring and also on the first version of the Bond Minicar (said to have been designed by Granville Bradshaw). As far as the suspension aspect is concerned, isn't the plunger system and the sliding pillar system actually one and the same thing? Mighty Antar (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I've never heard of Bucciali (why does it appear to have a Hispano Suiza mascot on the bonnet side?) but nothing could surprise me about those '50s minicars. I was interested recently to find that Chapman lifted his Chapman strut design from neither the Stout Scarab nor the French Ford with the MacPherson strut, as is usually thought, but actually from a Goggomobil.

Plunger is pretty close, I'd considered adding it already, but being a motorcycle there's only one wheel and so there's no independent aspect to it. Worth a See also if there's something already out there. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely any suspension system that only acts on one wheel is by it's nature independant? Either way it seems that one word is used for this type of suspension system in german whether it's on cars or motorcycles - "Geradwegfederung" - I couldn't find an exact technical translation for this but it's something like straight path springing. Mighty Antar (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Plunger may even be considered as less independent. There are two plungers for the wheel, and we hope that they move together (often they don't, owing to stiction, which is the main problem with plunger suspension). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Unilateral_redirects_without_merging_as_stated_in_edit_summaries_-_User:Wtshymanski --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd already seen it (If I had a working computer left in this house, I might have commented, rather than spent it trying to fix computers). The through-hole technology one was pretty egregious. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, make sure your time is spent staring at glowing rectangles; we don't want real life to interfere with that!

High comedy on W's talk page as Admin Moonriddengirl explains Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia to him. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too! I expect he'll now be tarred and feathered for not having filed the correct paperwork, but WP still won't be able to judge that this vast list of merges are mostly a bad idea editorially. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's the weakness; the admins don't know good engineering from bad, so all they can do is apply rules. At least they realize they don't have domain-specific knowledge; W. has limited engineering expertise and tends to delete anything he cannot understand. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is becoming really interesting. Remember what I said about W "discussing" his edits as one more bureaucratic hoop to jump through but never, ever changing his mind based upon another editor's arguments? It looks like this behavior pattern is playing itself out on ANI and his talk page, with Moonriddengirl (a paid Wikimedia employee, but acting as an ordinary editor) making an argument that copyright/attribution rules are not optional and W. as usual not being convinced. I saw this a lot when I was working at MIT (paid consultant, not student): someone spends their entire life being the smartest person in town, smarter than any teacher in the high school, etc. and becomes convinced that everyone else is always stupid and wrong. Then they hit MIT and find that they are in the bottom half in intelligence. Some of them actually dig in and maintain that they are still the smartest person in the room, followed by failing grades because the system is set up to require teamwork. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)