User talk:IsadoraofIbiza/Archive 3

What next?

What pictures are you planning to do next Kevin? If you'd like my suggestion, then I would say to go for a complete set of conics - Specific diagrams for Hyperbola, circle and ellipse and one general diagram containing all the four. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File:The conical cones of conics.svg has all four. Specific diagrams are just a matter of deleting the other three sections.—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a real big fan of that image. Too many things are there. Could you shift the parabola to the cone at the top? Maybe the ellipse too? Also, I would like to see what happens if the θ related info is removed, and eccentricity is mentioned as e. I would like the image to be cleaner. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Topicons

Did anyone ever get back to you on Template talk:Topicon#New icons? If not, my suggestion would be that you start a discussion at WP:VPM, and then link to it from Template talk:Pp-meta, Template talk:Featured article, Template talk:Good article, and Template talk:Spoken Wikipedia. I think the new icons are cool, but they'll need a fair amount of discussion first. (You might also want to take a look at the previous icon discussion on the Pp-meta talk page, though that was about adding to the images, not simplifying them.) Good luck, and feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you start the discussion. (I'm also toying with the idea of switching to them on Wikidata, where they're rather in keeping with our overall aesthetic theme.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, we're now using several of them on Wikidata. (See d:Template:Protected, d:MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext.) Thanks for creating such lovely icons! — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome !—Kelvinsong (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For Editions

I was talking to TheOriginalSoni and he redirected me to you. I was needing some help with U2 Wikiproject: I need to improve its Barnstars. Can you help me on that?? Reply at my talk page. Kind Regards.  Miss Bono (zootalk) 16:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand. Can you suggest someone??  

Miss Bono (zootalk) 20:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I would look around Wikipedia:Barnstars for their various creators, and contact the authors of the good ones (the stars vary somewhat in quality).—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Keep me in-touch 

Miss Bono (zootalk) 14:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe he meant "If I were you, I would have..." and not "I am going to..." TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, I get it now! 

Miss Bono (zootalk) 15:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Random thought of the day...could be fun....

Hey there, I was recently, chugging through a few old physics notes, and then I thought, hey, who do I know, with a graphics eye, could possibly diagram, the theoretical model of a Higgs Boson......SO, I read the wiki article..AND it would be a jaw dropper to have a graphic representation of the theoretical concept of one......merely a thought. Could be fun....Coal town guy (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, can you clarify what you mean by "graphical representation of the Higgs boson model" ?—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I will try, and you will probably laugh but here goes. IF I recall, there was a series of texts on Physics called Surely You are Joking Dr F....SO, in the texts, there is a discussion as to a model of an atom, so far, so good? OK, SO, I thought, WHY NOT read the Higgs Boson article here on Wikipedia, IS there a graphic showing a progression, ie. Oh, look an atom, Oh look a nucleus, Oh look a neutron etc etc etc. I thought, gee, wouldnt it be cool if a person who was good at graphics (thats you) were to in the manner described show what a theoretical progression to a Higgs Boson would be. That does NOT mean a progression through the literal hundreds of other particles, it means much like you very cool cell pics, WHY NOT, do the same with the theoretical construct? Again, it was a random thought, and to be honest, your job on mitochondria kind of helped the idea along. If its a sucky idea, thats cool. Much appreciate the reply and as always, your graphics rockCoal town guy (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean like a picture with an atom, then zoomed in to show the nucleus, then a nucleon, then (smaller subnucleonic particles I don't know much about) ? Regarding the concept, it's not a bad idea, though I don't think it's that high priority, though if it is, then I might consider doing it. Also on the science front, I'm not sure how you could show the Higgs boson within an atomic nucleus—I thought they are only produced in high-energy collisions, and the rest of the time they are part of an all-permeating "Higgs field".—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

In concept, possibly, but from a quantum mechanics view, almost. The collisions allow the Higgs to be found, they are not the result of said collision. I try to liken a Higgs as a matrix upon which all matter derives its characteristics and form, as we "know" it. That is of course until they try to find dark matter, which has alot of folks buzzing about a "dark" Higgs. The field idea is a cool concept, but, a better metaphor might be a lattice that determines the characteristics of everything on it. AND that characteristic would be for all matter, not just a specific set of elements etc etc IF however dark matter is replicated, the field of physics would possibly be changed in totum. Assuming we know enough to even get to that level. I dont believe it would be a priority, it would however be a cool conceptual model, IMOCoal town guy (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you could go the other way, too, from an atom to a planet, to a solar system, to a galaxy, to the observable universe, to the Big Bang, and then maybe back to the Higgs. It's a fun concept, but I can't imagine how you could render it as a graphic. DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

R & R Team @ WER

This request is NOT urgent. I thought I would go to the best Graphics guy on Wikipedia! ......but, he was busy...so, I wonder..."Are you busy,too?"... :~)...The R & R Team @ WER never got of the Drawing Board...see its brief history here. I am convinced I can relight whatever little ember may still exist. So when those other two editors say they will re-enlist, it would be great to have a logo already in place and ready to go. Whatever you come up will be great. I trust your genius. BTW...I think the working relationship you and Coal town guy have is awesome. 2 EotW's working to improve the Encyclopedia. Awesome!! Thanks for all you both do. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast inheritance

Hi Kelvin, you are adding some quite amazing material to Chloroplast, it is incredibly much better than it was before you started! In your latest addition there is a sentence that I think is a bit unclear: "Chloroplasts may be sorted by origin among multiple offspring.". What do you think of this: "Among multiple offspring the chloroplasts that survive in each individual may have originated from either or both parents."? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's much better. I agree that it's an unclear sentence, but I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it. What I meant is—imagine we have two algæ that fuse and divide to form offspring. The offspring as a whole have chloroplasts from both parents, but each daughter cell only has chloroplasts from one parent. The example given in the source text is for an alga, though the source diagrams show geraniums as exhibiting the same chloroplast segregation (except with a few biparentals).

How about "Parental chloroplasts can be sorted so that only one type is present in each offspring"—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good. I had hope that it could be linked to lineage sorting, but that isn't set up in a suitable way. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Xylem image

About the image that you added, I found it a bit confusing at first, apparently because in the upper part there is a label "tracheids" that caused me to wonder how you know they aren't vessel elements. Is there a way to be sure that is what they are? I wonder if "tracheary elements" would be less confusing. P.S.: wikipedia seems to lack coverage of fibre cells. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The source image File:Lamium sp., stalk, Etzold green 5.jpg has annotations and they say "Trachea" and "parenchyma".

The main diagram File:Plant cell types.svg has sclerenchyma fibers, but it doesn't work well with just the fibers (perspective shear causes problems)—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you be interested in WP:Snuggle

Hey,

Aaron has been working on Snuggle for some time now, and he has already got a prototype ready. But the current palette of colours he has got for the boxes is not very good. Ideally the different namespaces on Wikipedia must have different sets of Non-Green, Non-Red colours so they arent confusing. I wonder if you could help by helping us choose the right colours?

Thanks in advance! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would go with

2
8
18
18
4

50

Sn

Snuggle

118.7

Article

Talk

Template

User

User talk

Wikipedia

Revert

Revert

Revert

Revert

Revert

Revert

 

Welcome!

Discussion

Speedy deletion

Warning

—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll get these wrapped in. --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Woah! Those are some pretty awesome shades. Could you suggest one each for the three main buttons too (Red, Green, Yellow/Grey)? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, IsadoraofIbiza. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

• i have requested for deletion of the userpage revisions which contained the email address. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast

Just so you know, sandbox pages for proposed article redrafts are not allowed to be kept in articlespace, but have to be created in an internal project namespace such as Wikipedia: or User: — accordingly, I've moved your chloroplast sandbox to User:Kelvinsong/Chloroplast/Sandbox. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead images and cognitive load

The images you've produced for molecular biology are great artistic renditions of the subject matter. I like how the images about mechanisms walk the viewer through each step in the process with a sentence or two describing what's going on. However, in articles like transcription or translation, I think having lower-information-density images than File:MRNA.svg and File:Protein_synthesis.svg in the lead would be much more helpful to readers. (With their current level of detail, those images seem better suited for the body of the article.) Have you ever considered making much simpler and more glanceable introductory images for those subjects? Emw (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. Maybe for File:MRNA.svg just the top part with the DNA-RNA molecule would work.—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

first sentence

Hi K:

You edited the "parabola" article to put the first diagram above the first text, saying that doing it otherwise wastes valuable space. But in fact the waste of space is negligible, and the value of space is zero.

I did have a good reason for putting the text first. If you Google "parabola", you'll seee a quotation of the very beginning of the article, which, as it is, doesn't mean much because it's the caption of a diagram. Putting a meaningful sentence before the first diagram should fix this, when Google gets around to catching up.

I haven't reverted your edit. Doing so would look petty and silly. But I do suggest that maybe you should revert it yourself. No?

David

DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Putting the picture after the first sentence both creates an awkward thin "shelf" of text, and pushes an already heavily-displaced image stack even farther down. In some cases, space is meaningless, but in situations where we have lead images at the bottom of the History section (or on my widescreen monitor, floating in a huge whitespace gap between History and Equation in Cartesian coordinates), every line counts.

The search-engine optimization solution is not to jam down the image stack, but put a general parabola picture at the top instead of a specific diagram showing one definition File:Parabola with focus and directrix.svg. Maybe File:Parabel som keglesnit.jpg or the File:Parabola features.svg you moved.—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... File:Parabel som keglesnit.jpg also shows just one definition, the conic section one. But ok. I've put a very general Parabola image at the very top.

The layout looks reasonably good now on my screen, but maybe not on yours. And almost certainly not on the screen of a smartphone, which is how many readers access Wikipedia. There's probably no solution that will please everybody.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	Bio Editors' Barnstar
	For your wonderful work on Chloroplast. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I am determined to get that article to at least a B-status (right now it's a C class.), though there is still a lot to go.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What you've added is all very good quality. What is there now is an order of magnitude better than what was there when you started! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sponge

Wikipedia is not your personal playground. If something about the new diagram is incorrect we can work together to fix that, otherwise the new image will remain. Shep^Talk 01:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what you're trying to accomplish by running around making duplicates and trying to overwrite pictures?—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I had originally just tried to remove the irrelevant parts of the diagram from the original, but was reverted. I have no desire to get in an edit war on Commons, so I made a cleaned duplicate. What are you trying to accomplish by inserting diagrams with pennies and potato chips in an article that already deals with its fair share of vandalism? Shep^Talk 03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I was not vandalizing the sponge article. I put in a great deal of time and effort to draw that syconoid sponge diagram, and there was a lot of unused space at the bottom because of the shadow, so I put in a Spongebob reference—Penny, Chip, and Used Napkin. What you were doing was quite underhanded—first you snuck in and removed the reference with the edit summary "Reducing file size", which I first assumed you were just using a codescrubbing tool instead of sneakily deleting stuff. Then you made your own duplicate which added nothing and did not shrink the image size at all, while removing the easter egg (again, with no edit summary or admission), and replaced the old picture twice before discussing.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)