User talk:Whiner01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Whiner01! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! ---- ElectricEye 10:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help Where to ask a question Help Desk Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Oxymorons/Oxymora

Where are you ultimately wanting this page to be? With admin tools I can merge two pages with histories and leave the rest as empty redirects, if that's what you want. Leave a note on my talk page. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's done. Let me know if something isn't quite as you intended. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: redlinks

I replied on my talk page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic bomb v. nuclear weapon

I agree that "atomic bomb" is a misnomer, but in some contexts it is common to refer to "nuclear weapons" as "atomic bombs" to indicate that they are fission-powered air-dropped devices. In referring to a country's early development of nuclear weapons it is quite commonplace. It also helps to break up the style in some places, where one is looking for more than one way to say "nuclear weapons". Anyway, I'm just putting that out there as considerations before you try to change all instances of "atomic bomb" to "nuclear weapon" -- I don't think it's always required, especially in referring to historical circumstances. In situations where it is ambiguous as to whether they are fission or fusion weapons, or the delivery method is ambiguous, I think "nuclear weapon" is always preferable, of course. --Fastfission 17:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I caught myself. Changing all instances is not the way to go for this one. Looking at places where replacement was tempting, it just did not feel right. Most uses of "atomic bomb" really have to be left as they are.

They always told us that "atomic bomb" and "atomic energy" were unfortunate misnomers. Everything is made of atoms. Every object, tool and weapon ever made uses the mechnical, electrical, chemical and nuclear properties... of atoms. The word "atomic" is too general. Atoms consist of nuclei and electrons. Does "atomic energy", refer to interacting electrons or interacting nuclei? To properly name the special new tools and weapons that release energy from interacting nuclei, we have to call them "nuclear bomb" and "nuclear energy", they say.

But then why does everyone understand "atomic bomb", "atomic energy", "atomic decay" and "atom smasher"? These terms are quite unambiguous. When I say "atomic energy", no one will EVER think that I am talking about rubber bands, batteries, light bulbs, or gasoline. "Atomic" has long been synonymous with "nuclear" in these terms. "Nuclear" may be preferred, but "atomic" is an accepted alternate, not slang as some might suggest. The Atomic Energy Commission disappeared into the Nuclear Regulatory Commmission, but there is still an International Atomic Energy Agency.

In chemistry, "atom" and "nucleus" are close to interchangeable. An ion is a charged atom or molecule. A fully ionized atom is a bare nucleus, but it is still called an atom. Conversely, hydrogen ions are interchangably called protons.

To talk about the remaining energies or properties of materials (atoms) that are not nuclear, the term "molecular" covers most or all of them. (Molecules stretch, bend, burn, dissolve, fluoresce, etc.) A piece of metal is actually a macromolecule. Non-molecular atoms are actually not a common thing in chemistry. The "noble gases" are "monatomic" because they are nonreactive.

Historically, "atomic bomb" was what everyone called the thing as it emerged. It is in the old books, old movies, and our memories. "Atomic bomb", "atom bomb", or "A-bomb". It sounds smoother. Even if we want to call it a "nuclear bomb" or "nuclear weapon", we will always call it the "atomic bomb".

By The Way: "Nuclear" might be more correct than "atomic", but how did "bomb" get laundered into "weapon"? It's a perverted euphemism. Every "nuclear weapon" IS A BOMB. "Nuclear bomb" is an honest name. (As would be "Incinerator of Cities".) "Nuclear bomb" doesn't sound as smooth as "nuclear weapon". Maybe those who coined "nuclear weapon" were also considering how it sounded.

It seems like "forced correctness" to title the article "Nuclear weapon". ("Atomic bomb" outnumbers "Nuclear weapon", 11 million to 8 million hits on Google. "Nuclear bomb" has 4 million.) "Forced correctness" is not going to succeed in renaming the thing. (And the name is wrong anyway. We should follow the lead and rename the article "Nuclear bomb".)

And then there's the specificity of the historical "Atomic bomb" / "Hydrogen bomb" distinction. "A-bomb" referred to the initial fission bomb, since the days when it was the only nuclear bomb. The later fission-fusion "super" bomb was named "H-bomb" when it came along. The term "A-bomb" never refers to an H-bomb. But every H-bomb contains an A-bomb, so the A-bomb article can legitimately include the H-bomb. "Nuclear bomb" automatically refers to both "A-bomb" and "H-bomb". The ambiguity can be annoying or useful. -Whiner01 23:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting 101

(this same thread is also assembled completely at User_talk:Deeptrivia#Reverting_101)

1) A revert of a major edit is NOT a minor edit. (Rupee: history)

2) A revert needs an EXPLANATION. Your revert was right, I got it wrong. The edit which I reverted was not explained correctly. He really did add the template, not just suggest it as his edit note implied. (The templates are kind of tiny, which should be another problem to address on Wikipedia.) Was it really that hard to type in that the previous changes DID add the template? Reverting anyone's edit or revert, within one minute of the edit, with NO explanation, makes you look like a "revert-bot" or a sock-puppet of the previous editor. Just as you left me to figure out why my inept edit deserved to be reverted, likewise you have left anyone after us to figure out the same. --Whiner01 01:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Whiner01, sorry for the inconvenience. I do use an automated revert tool that marks a revert as a minor edit, and doesn't allow writing a custom made summary. I think your suggestion are quite useful, and I'll pass them on to the person who made the tool. Meanwhile, it's great that you figured out that the revert was indeed useful. The template is quite handy because it provides a uniform access to and from all Rupee related articles. Please feel free to improve the template in any way you can. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I made other subtler tweaks on "Rupee"; let's see if they help.

I also adjusted Category:Rupee some, all formatting changes. I think I changed this category box for the better.

I have caught a gross problem that seems to affect most or all category boxes, having smaller print than the main article and italic instead of bold, thereby REDUCING visibility of the linked related topics that they are supposed to highlight.

If my style changes to that category box are for the better, then I would hope that the differences will get copied to other category pages. Sadly, I think the opposite will happen. My changed box is outnumbered by other boxes, so it is very likely that someone will come through and, in the name of Consistency (god), will restore the category page to small-print unreadability, not thinking of the drawbacks. I would look for a way to Meta-fix the category boxes, but sadly they are not using only template features. Every (?) category box seems to have font size specified within it, a very wrong thing. --Whiner01 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rupee

Hello,

I don't understand why you changed the Template:Rupee. The reason I set that to 90% was because there are other currency navigation template like Template:AsianCurrencies, which includes more that that Template:Rupee includes. Therefore, 90% would be better. I'm trying really hard to make sure that things are consistent. So whatever change we decide here, it must be applied to these templates as well:

• {{AfricanCurrencies}}
• {{AsianCurrencies}}
• {{AmericanCurrencies}}
• {{EuropeanCurrencies}}
• {{PreEuroCurrencies}}
• {{Crown}}

--Chochopk 09:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for not slamming it back. To re-state the case all in one place (as if anyone else is looking):

My edit description for that change was:

de-center and add "See also" heading for article "History of the rupee"; upsize (small print is not fair); bold the section headings (like any other article)

And here are my (edited) notes, originally an aside to a different issue:

I have caught a problem that seems to affect most or all category boxes. Surprisingly, many category boxes seem to have smaller print than the main article. Is that a benefit? Section headings within these boxes are merely Italic, instead of Bold, as they are in article. Overall, I think that some category box stylings are REDUCING the visibility of the content (links to categorically related articles) that they are supposed to highlight. Links that seemed visible outside the box become invisible inside the box. I think the reduced size and altered font style are a big part of the problem.

If the changes I made to that category box really are for the better, then I would hope that the differences will get copied to other category pages. Sadly, I think the opposite will happen. My changed box is outnumbered by other boxes, so it is very likely that someone will come through and, in the name of Consistency (god), will restore the category page to small-print unreadability, not thinking of the drawbacks. I would look for a way to Meta-fix the category boxes, but sadly the templates are not using only template features. Every (?) category box seems to have font size specified within it, which is not the way things are supposed to work.

Centering also makes things hard to read -- or to find! I did not systematically address centering; I only removed it where it seemed to be making a problem.

As we both mentioned, related boxes ARE affected by a change to this box. I didn't want to just go hunt down every category box and edit it. Creating this difference and then discussing it gives a chance for a resolution. Consistency is nice, but clearly you are thinking about more than just consistency. (There's nothing like a negative expectation to bring out the best in people.)

After these boxes are decided, if we decide to revise them as a set, then this little box-altering meme will want to spread to all the other category boxes, won't it?

So there's another reason to be cautious, as this box styling gets to be a Wikipedia Style issue. We should find the guidelines that affect category boxes, or else create them, or else correct what's there, if they forgot to address little old READABILITY.

90% font, with the browser and fonts that I use, works out to 86% height. (Height of "o" goes from 7 pixels to 6 pixels.)

These boxes seem to be a bit too technical, with all the cryptic HTML-like mark-up (WikiML?) for tables and the like. I don't know how or when that happened. It's taking the edit process away from the editors. If category boxes are important, I'd think that they would be easier to edit. Maybe they should be lower-tech, resulting in a format looking more like a regular page -- Category box would act more like a simple "include" of text with the usual formatting.

I also notice, when comparing the "Category:Hogwarts" page and the "Hogwarts" page (for example), that there is often awkwardness or ambiguity or lack of linkage or even diparate content. I'm not sure that these are working as they should.

Eventually I might try to adjust such things on Wikipedia. It takes a little more research on the topics, which takes a litte more to,e than tweaks incidental to browsing or browsing incidental to tweaking. So I need a time when I can focus.

I find it painful navigating the Wiki Help and Guides pages -- they seem not to be in the regular like normal pages AND they seem to have no search function of their own. Even "Meta" does not seem to be Meta enough. Everything in Help must be navigated to by the use of links and Ctrl+F (the browser's "Find on page" command).

Getting back to the issue at-hand, what are your thoughts? Is my hack more legible and reasonable to use? Is it better or righter?

If you want to propagate it to see what happens (someone else will surely question it), go ahead. I have edited some category pages, hence my wondering if they are styled correctly, but I am not watching any collections of category pages for consistency. If you are suggesting that I should edit the related pages you listed, I would be happy to edit them myself as well.

--Whiner01 01:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns about readability. So let's lay down the concerns one by one

• font size
• font for sub group (i.e. current v.s. defunct)
• center or not

(if I miss some your points, please remind me again)

So let's see other navigational boxes on some other subjects

{{EU countries and candidates}}

It in turns calls {{NavigationBox}}, which specifies font-size: 90%; and appears to be centered as it renderes on my browser. {{NavigationBox}} is used by 802 other templates.

{{USPoliticalDivisions}}

{{Polygons}}

They are also 90%, center, but do not use {{NavigationBox}}. They are built from ground up.

{{US topics}}

v • d • e Major topics in the United States
History	Timeline ( Colonial Era • Declaration of Independence and American Revolution • Westward Expansion • Civil War • World War I • Great Depression • World War II • Cold War • Vietnam War • Civil Rights) • Foreign relations • Military • Demographic • Industrial • Postal
Government	Law ( Constitution • Bill of Rights • Separation of powers) • Legislative branch ( House • Senate) • Executive Branch ( Cabinet • Federal agencies) • Judicial Branch ( Appeals)
Politics	Political parties ( Democrats • Republicans) • Elections (Electoral College) • Political scandals • Red state vs. blue state divide • Uncle Sam
Geography	Political divisions • Territory • States • Cities • Counties • Regions (New England • Mid-Atlantic • The South • Midwest • Great Plains • Northwest • Southwest) • Mountains ( Appalachian • Rocky) • Rivers (Mississippi • Colorado) • Valleys • Islands • Extreme points • National Park System
Economy	U.S. Dollar • Companies • Wall Street • Federal Reserve • Banking • Standard of living (Personal and Household income • Homeownership) • Communications • Transportation (Cars and Highways • Airports • Railroads) • Tourism
Society	Demographics • Languages (American English • Spanish) • Religion • Social structure (American Dream • Affluence • Middle class • Poverty • Educational attainment • Professional and working class conflict) • Media • Education • Holidays • Crime • Prisons
Arts	Music ( Classical • Folk • Popular) • Film and TV (Hollywood) • Literature (American Folklore • Poetry • Transcendentalism • Harlem Renaissance • Beat Generation) • Visual arts ( Abstract expressionism) • Cuisine • Dance • Architecture
Controversies	Immigration • Affirmative action • Racial profiling • Human rights • War on Drugs • Pornography • Same-sex marriage • Capital punishment • Anti-Americanism • American exceptionalism • United States Mexico barrier
WikiProject United States

This one is a little out of the norm. The font is <small>, and it looks smaller than 90% on my browser.

{{Philosophy navigation}}

91% font, wierd choice. Whether or not this box is centered is not meaningful, as it is always 100% of available space, even if I enlarge my browser to more thab 2800 pixel wide.

{{tl|Star Wars]]

<small> again, with bolded categories on the left.

There are more at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates.

So going back to the points above

• font size

I guess 90% is the common ground, as it is used by {{NavigationBox}} and is copied to many other directly-built boxes

• font for sub group (i.e. current v.s. defunct)

I now agree that we should use bold

• center or not

Most are centered. I still don't know what kind of problem it causes on your computer. =P

We can either use {{NavigationBox}} (with table in table), or to write up the style directly. I have to try both to make a better decision. --Chochopk 02:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

- Font Style for subgroups within category box: Bold is the trend and we both like it. More important, the reason, it reads better. And it's more consistent with the section titles in regular articles. Let's go for it. In any templates where we happen to notice it, let's change Italic subgroups to Bold.

- Font Size: 90% seems the common size (but not constant). If it is the common size, then the common size is wrong. It shouldn't be so surprising. The font is undersized where it needs to be clear. Maybe some Wikipedia guideline should prescribe 100% as the minimum font size. I need a little more thought to take an exact stand on this. I have had 20/13 eyesight, but my focus is just starting to change. When I see "fine print" on a web page, I can't help but ask why. Someone was being too clever. Let's go look at a paper encyclopedia or two, just to see how they handle font size in inset boxes and photo captions. In these Category boxes, i find that the Title is too small, the entries are too small, and the subgroup titles are too small! In small fonts, Italic and Bold blur the letters more than they do at larger fonts. I notice that in some of the examples you posted, the subgroup title is deliberately made larger than the the contents of the subgroup, presumably also in keeping with the regular article format that automatically makes section titles larger.

So next some thought or research, and then maybe i'll try to carefully change that template. Maybe try "sandbox" like they suggest.

In spite of the warnings there, there are several "oops" corrections in its history. The warning says "This template employs some extremely complicated and esoteric features of template syntax. Please do not attempt to alter it unless you are certain that you understand the setup and are prepared to repair any consequent collateral damage if the results are unexpected. ..." The template is even more gruesome than the Category pages that use it! Why does such crazy coding and unnecessary fiddling with format have any place on Wikipedia?

- Centering: I guess I was a little vague. All of the boxes are centered. (100%-width boxes are by definition left-justified, right-justified AND centered, regardless of which alignment is requested.) Centering seems to be what one does with boxes. I hadn't thought much about the centering OF the box. Maybe it's okay. Centering of subgroup names within their little invisible cells can be problematic. The worst thing, which made me go in and de-center something, is when there is a single item in a list and that list is centered. The closest example is in the "The Star Wars Saga" box. The subgroup "Spin-off films:" -- then way, way, way, way, way over is that listed item, "The Star Wars Holiday Special". (Actually that box is an especially bad example of a box. Some subgroups are one row and some are two rows. The lists are vertically centered, so that a two-row list includes items that are above and below the subgroup title.) How do I know what goes with what?? It's not user-friendly or reader-friendly. It has an oppressive feel that makes me look away. Some of the other examples show attractive styling and some show good usability.

--Whiner01 05:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I will spend some time on fixing the other boxes, maybe tomorrow. I am just so occupied with other stuff about currencies. It's not easy to manage 170 some currencies. As you can see, consistency is important to me. Once I start doing it, I might find myself modifying the polygon template!

It's good that we resolve this in a non-Wikipedia fashion (revert war) =). About the font size, have you thought about enlarging it with your browser setting? I do make use of that feature from time to time. --Chochopk 06:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And yes, I agree with you. The Star Wars box is stupid. --Chochopk 06:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your edits at coroutine

((moved to Talk:Coroutine)) --Whiner01 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)