Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Using the caliper

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

Using the caliper[edit]

Using a vernier caliper to take measurements on a nut. The 1st two digits are decided by the location of the 0 on the lower scale. The last digit is determined by the 1st line on the lower scale that exactly matches the upper scale.
File:Using the caliper edit.gif
Using a vernier caliper to take measurements on a nut(decimal point version)
Using a vernier caliper to take measurements on a nut - edit 1. The 1st two digits are decided by the location of the 0 on the lower scale. The last digit is determined by the 1st line on the lower scale that exactly matches the upper scale.

Didactic animation to illustrate the use of a vernier caliper. Appears in article caliper. Animation created by Joaquim Alves Gaspar

  • Nominate and support. - Alvesgaspar 16:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Nicely done, demonstrates the concept perfectly. InvictaHOG 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Painfully weak oppose - I'd happily support but for a small border, about 1 px wide, of black on two edges and light grey on one other. Sort that out and I'll change to support. -- CountdownCrispy ( ? 17:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's done (I hadn't noticed. Conversion problems) Alvesgaspar 18:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Question about the commas as the decimal separators in the numbers. Would this be an issue in making this image a featured picture on the English wikipedia, as (as far as I know) the use of commas is not common in English. (I know people who would be confused by it, mainly because their French teachers didn't teach them.) Is there a policy about this? Spebudmak 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll bet it would be easy to make a version with the decimal marker changed. The non-English version is a candidate for Featured Picture in Wikimedia Commons, where issues germane to specific languages are not important, but in the English Wikipedia, it would be a stronger candidate if it follows English conventions. Fg2 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Info I hesitated before using the comma as a decimal separator. Finally I was driven by the fact that it is used in Europe (except UK) and in many other countries in the World. On the other hand, the decimal point is the standard in English written scientific papers. Conclusion: I will soon add a new version with the decimal point. Alvesgaspar 08:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Can't be much more encyclopedic than this! Support also valid for a (future?) version with decimal point instead of comma. --Janke | Talk 06:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Precise, and nicely done. One a side note: most of today's calipers are digital, you just have to read what the screen says... -Glaurung 06:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Edit: I prefer the third edit. As I knew before how to use a caliper, the first and second versions were cristal clear for me, but from what I read on this page, that might be a little bit confusing for those who have never used one of these tools. I think the third edit helps explaining the concept. Glaurung 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Info Here is the decimal point version. It is basically the same animation and I think it should be considered as the same nomination. Alvesgaspar 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support and thanks for the version with the English decimal marker. Fg2 12:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to be honest... it took me a long time to figure out where the 0.07 figure came from. It looks like an arbitrary number until you realize that you're trying to line up the marks. I know that the red line indicates that it matches up, but maybe it could be more explicit? Maybe you could mark a red line on each mark until you get to the 0.07 mark, and then extend the line the whole way to show that it matches up? Just a suggestion... (Or maybe it really is easily understood, and I'm just slow!) tiZom(2¢) 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think the animation is unnecessary and distracting when I'm trying to focus on reading the lines for myself, only to have it suddenly loop back to the start. Why can't we just have the final frame on it own? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Info. OK, here is an improved version which, I hope, will satisfy some critics. Thank you for the suggestion, tiZom. The objective of the animation is to show how the movable parts (verniers, jaws and probe) work, more than to illustrate how to read the scales - Alvesgaspar 16:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, you still have "2,4" at the beginning -- it switches to "2.4" when you do the addition. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. After viewing this several times, I still have no idea how the 0.07 part is calculated. I see how you get 2.4, and then the red lines moving and all, but I have no idea WHY you stop at 7 to get that measurement. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Info The "0,07" is read directly in the vernier (which is graduated in 1/100 cm), at the exact point where there is a coincidence between a segment of the vernier scale and a segment of the main scale (i.e., when they line up). But this is the kind of explanation that we should put in the caption, not in the picture itself. Alvesgaspar 16:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Let me see if I understand this: The main scale is where the 2.4 was measured, right? So are you saying that you get 0.07 because 7 lines up exactly with 5.2 on what I'm calling the main scale (and 1-6 don't exactly line up with any other lines)? howcheng {chat} 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's correct. I think that with edit 1, it's much easier to see what's going on. But maybe there is still some confusion? tiZom(2¢) 20:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Man, that took me a long time to understand. There has to be some sort of mathematical principle that makes this work or something, because otherwise it still seems pretty random/arbitrary/coincidental to me, and it really should explained in the article. I think agree with BernardH (below) that animation just makes this even more confusing. This could just as easily be done with a static image. Heck, the last frame by itself is probably good enough if you combine it with a good caption. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see the explanation in vernier scale. Got it now. howcheng {chat} 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
              • To finish my thought from earlier, I still oppose this. One, the animation is totally unnecessary. I don't need to see the caliper open and the nut go in. Two, it really doesn't illustrate caliper well -- it illustrates vernier scale, where Wikipedian-made images already exist to show me how it works. So if the last frame of this animation (which I think is the most informative one) were to replace the existing photo, it would have to be in SVG. Even given all of that, I don't think it's FP material. It's extremely useful, but compared to the complexity of some of the contents of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, Drawings, and Maps it doesn't quite pass muster. Sorry. howcheng {chat} 09:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • weak oppose - when the newest edit transitions from zooming in to the red line starting to move, there is an (~1px) adjustment of the pixels at the .07 mark. For an animation trying to convey strict precision, this should be fixed. Debivort 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - nicely done. Debivort 18:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for noting. It is fixed now. Alvesgaspar 11:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, but would prefer without the animation. --Bernard 18:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support the 3rd version but with periods. IT also needs the caption I added. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oops, it was a mistake. It is fixed now. Alvesgaspar 11:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Any either of the second two versions; fantastic! • Leon 11:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Third version. NauticaShades 17:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but would support non-animated one. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I stared at this thing a long time and still didn't get the 0.07 without the above discussion. I think the animation needs a third phase, where the camera zooms in to the little marks, showing how the first 6 marks don't line up, but the 7th does. Also, it should pause longer at that point - it moves too fast when you're trying to understand such a subtle point. Stevage 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Info - It is not easy at all to understand how to read a vernier scale. And I agree with you, and with Howcheng, that it might be frustrating (and most irritating) seeing the animation restart when you try to figure out how it works. But the main objective of the animation is just to illustrate the use of a caliper, not to teach how to read a vernier scale. For that purpose, a static image like this one is better. If we could stop the animation where we like, that would be perfect. But we can't, as far as I know. Alvesgaspar 14:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But it's obvious how to use a caliper: it's reading the vernier scale which needs instruction, and I still think that's the focus of this animation, not how to insert the nut. (Which makes me notice that the captions are wrong: the bolt is the screw-without-a-pointy-end that goes inside the nut). Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly -- that's why I argue that the focus of this image is on using the vernier scale. Otherwise, why devote so much time to marking off the lines and showing the total size of it? If you want an animation to show how to use a caliper, perhaps it shouldn't be a vernier caliper. howcheng {chat} 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think that just because it is vexing how this contraption works, that the picture isn't incredibly helpful. Anyhow, it seems to me that the way it works should be written in the article itself. AJarvis 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks for addressing the issue of the decimal comma/point. Latest version of the animation is clear. Spebudmak 07:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very informative. I would prefer the one with the decimal point better. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support TomStar81 (Talk) 23:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Using the caliper new en.gif --KFP (talk | contribs) 00:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)