User talk:Thunderbird2/2007

Decibel[edit]

The Decibel article has far too much on acoustics - aside from mentioning why a decibel is a useful unit in acoustics, all the discussion there should be in some other article. --Wtshymanski 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nautical miles[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you're changing the nm abbreviation for nautical miles to nmi whenever you see it. I asked WP:SHIPS what they thought about it here, but didn't get much of a response. I'd like to ask if you'd be willing to stop making this change, because nm is by far the most common abbreviation for nautical miles. It is essentially impossible to read a range in nautical miles and confuse it for nanometers, because they differ by a dozen orders of magnitude. In addition, I always link my first use of nm to the article for nautical mile and I provide metric conversions following all nautical mile figures. TomTheHand 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. Thanks for your interest, and for pointing out the brief project discussion in the Ship Project. I was wondering when someone would notice. There are a number of reasons why I disagree with you on this.

1. I don't accept that nm is the most common abbreviation. If you tell me it is common in the USA I believe you. But I live and work in Europe and it is not common here, or at least not in my field of work (sonar).

2. While it may be difficult to confuse a nautical mile with a nanometre, that does not make it impossible. Just the very fact of using the same symbol for two different units is by its nature confusing. I once witnessed a demonstration of radar software that showed detection ranges in units of "nm" and asked (tongue firmly in cheek!) why it was the ranges were so short :-) The response came back straight away "Oh, that's a typo. The nm should read km". To this day I am unsure whether his screen was actually in miles or kilometres. And perhaps the demonstrator is as well.

3. I'm sure you're aware that the nautical mile is accepted for use alongside the SI system, and also that there is no internationally accepted abbreviation for the nautical mile. I believe that one day a symbol will be chosen, and when this day comes, I am certain that symbol will not be nm, because that would never be accepted by SI.

So, where does that leave us? My suggestion is that we both temporarily refrain from changes in either direction and try to find a rational solution to our difference. I know WP is keen on consensus, and you have tried that path already, with little success. Personally I prefer to find a solution that you and I are both comfortable with, as no one else seems to even care. Can we agree on that? Thunderbird2 15:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, I'd like to continue to discuss this on the talk page for WP:SHIPS so we can seek a wider consensus. Please see here. TomTheHand 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you wikilinked the unit "nautical miles" in the article on Fisheries Management? Not implying any criticism, what was your reason for doing so? Some sort of emphasis? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not for emphasis. My intention was to make it easy for someone reading the article to look up the definition if they want to know how the nautical mile compares with a statute mile or whatever. Do you prefer not to have such links? Thunderbird2 22:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not, because I think it draws visual attention away from the number. When, for example, I need to look up the relationship of the Becquerel, Gray, and rem, I look them up with a few keystrokes. Perhaps I am getting oversensitive ahout the metric versus customary unit matter, but I am getting of the opinion that the units are getting more emphasis than the values. It's certainly nothing you have done, but I've gotten the sense that when I write something in a nautical knowlege domain, where, for example, knots and nautical miles are customary in UN documents, an editor will quickly swoop in to supply a conversion. There are many knowledge domains where customary notation is not easily accessible to a nonspecialist, such as the use of Greek letters in much of physics. When I write software involving such variables, I give them mnemonic names, but I don't see a widespread controversy over special symbols. The controversy seems to overemphasize units, ironically since metric usage still often can't decide on mass vs. moles (chemistry), CGS vs. MKS (physics), etc. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be inappropriate to convert to a metric unit in an article like this one. If a reader wishes to learn about matters nautical, they will need to understand the nautical mile. So, why not make it easy for them? I suppose it is a balance between improving the flow of the article (few hot links) and minimising the number of key strokes required to access definitions (many hot links). For me one more link doesn't detract from readability, but this is subjective, and I don't feel strongly about it either way. Please feel free to change it back the way it was. You will notice from the discussion above your comment that I *do* feel strongly about avoiding the use of "nm" as an abbreviation for the nautical mile. If you are interested in contributing to that debate you may wish to take a look on the SHIPS talk page. Thunderbird2 06:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderbird, I see that the aviation discussion seems to indicate that "NM" is the best abbreviation for nautical miles with aviation. I have no problem with using this abbreviation for ships as well; should we start using it across the board or do you think that'll need further discussion? TomTheHand 17:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page, I changed the references from nmi to nm as in all the reference books in aviation then NM (or nm) is the accepted term. I have official RAF and UK CAA documents that use NM sometimes nm so the compromise of using NM is probably supportable. Didnt mean to disrupt your good work but nmi just didnt look right. MilborneOne 17:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is an important consideration, which is why I've been happy to accept NM (as opposed to nm) as a compromise all along. If the ICAO guidelines do indeed recommend use of NM (remember all that we have so far is an Australian memo referring to the guidelines - not the guidelines themselves), then it makes sense for the aviation articles to follow that. Given the apparent dearth of clear *international* guidelines on maritime matters, I see no good reason for not adopting NM for SHIPS also. My main objective from the beginning was to avoid the clash with the nanometre. Lightmouse said he was going to move the B2 Spirit discussion to the MOS page though. If he does that we will undoubtably get some new opinions. In the meantime I will start using NM for ships and aircraft. Happy editing :) Thunderbird2 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wikilinks[edit]

Sorry, thought I read somewhere that they weren't needed. my bad. I won't object to them being put back in. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I try not to add too much clutter by linking only on first use :-) Thunderbird2 21:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newton metre[edit]

Hi,

I see that you are making the symbolic form 'N m'. The Wikipedia style guide says "It is abbreviated Nm or N·m". Is there a particular reason for the format that you are using? Regards Lightmouse 20:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lightmouse. My reasoning for these changes is that Nm is not permitted by SI, so when I see it I change it to N m. I have no objection to N·m as this is also accepted by SI, except that I don't know how to make the dot (except using copy-paste). Perhaps the style guide should be changed to state a preference for N·m though (over Nm). Thunderbird2 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SI authority (the BIPM) states that 'Nm' is permitted. The relevant section is:

"5.3.6 Multiplying or dividing quantity symbols, the values of quantities, or numbers"].

In any debates about SI, it is always worth going to the official website. The 'N m' option is also permitted but I was just curious as to the changes from one valid option to another. Regards. Lightmouse 10:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. But now I'm confused. If I use those rules, how am I supposed to know whether ms means metre·second or millisecond? I usually use NIST guidelines (NIST Special Publication 811, Taylor 1995). I will check to see what they say. Thunderbird2 10:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked SP811. On p12 it says "Symbols for units formed from other units by multiplication are indicated by means of either ... dot or a space" and then "m·s^(-1) is the symbol for the meter per second while ms^(-1) is the symbol for the reciprocal millisecond". I have to say I am surprised to see this inconsistency between BIPM and NIST, but the NIST advice seems more sensible to me. Thunderbird2 11:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found an earlier version (7th edition, 1998) of that BIPM document that uses the Newton metre as an example to illustrate the SI multiplication rules. It gives N m and N·m as allowed options, but not Nm. That explains the inconsistency I guess, because NIST are still following the old rules. Frankly, I think BIPM have scored an own goal; I cannot see their new rules lasting very long, because of all the ambiguities they introduce. Thunderbird2 11:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading through the 2006 BIPM document again. I think we are both been misinterpreting it. Got to go now. More to follow later ... Thunderbird2 12:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back again. This is how I see it: The relevant part to our discussion is on p130 (Sec 5.1, Unit Symbols) which says "Multiplication must be indicated by a space or a half-high (centred)dot (⋅),since otherwise some prefixes could be misinterpreted as a unit symbol." That means that N m and N·m are both permitted but Nm is not. The confusion arises because the letters a, b and c in Sec 5.3.6 do not represent units (eg N or m) but physical quantities (force or distance). Thunderbird2 13:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting and excellent research. For SI, I always go direct to BIPM. I use NIST only for American units and their proposal to amend the FPLA for "Permissible Metric-Only Labeling" at http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/mpo_home.cfm.

I was not aware of the ambiguity in 'ms' but you are right. I think you have persuaded me. Thank you for pointing it out and explaining it to me.

Incidentally, have you considered using my unit formatting script at User:Lightmouse/monobook.js. All you have to do is copy the source text to User:Thunderbird2/monobook.js, clear your cache (press ctrl-shift-R in Firefox). Whenever you are editing a page, you will only need to press the 'combined' tab at the top. Lightmouse 09:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pistol shrimp Decibels[edit]

How did you get 218dB from 80kPa in the Pistol Shrimp article? The ratio 80kPa/1uPa is 180.6 dB on my calculator. Even adding 6dB to turn it into a peak value (which itself also baffles me) still does not get it over 200dB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry! just realised which wrong button I pressed my calculator which is clearly far more intelligent than me!Spinningspark 16:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I had typed this reply anyway, so I include it here for the benefit of anyone else who happens to come along with the same question :)

The calculation goes like this: 10 log₁₀ [(80•10³ / 10^-6)²] =~ 218.

I haven't read the article recently, so I'm not sure which 6 dB you're referring to, but it may be a conversion between zero to peak and peak to peak levels. Does that answer your question? Thunderbird2 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of USS Trumpetfish (SS-425)[edit]

Hey Thunderbird! Just wanted to make you aware that in your recent edit to Trumpetfish, you linked some extra occurrences of "ft" and "in" in the infobox, even though the first use of each unit was already linked. I'm pointing it out because if you're doing this with a script or regular expression, it may have a couple of bugs in it. Have a good day! TomTheHand 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, Thanks for the note. Actually that was a manual change. I just didn't notice the first links :) I'll go back and fix it.

By the way, I was surprised at the relative lack of interest after Lightmouse moved the nm vs NM vs nmi discussion to MOSNUM. It seems to have reached the same impasse as before at SHIPS. It's a pity because it would help if we could adopt a convention that we can all agree on. Thunderbird2 20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioacoustics[edit]

Finally I found the time to do a complete rewrite of the article on bioacoustics. Please check it and let me know what you think. Thanks, --Yerpo 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a huge improvement on what was there before you started. I've made some minor edits, and may return for some more, but it looks good. One thing I did notice that needs attention is your use of the term "underwater microphone". This term is never used in underwater acoustics - instead it's called a hydrophone. Thanks for your efforts. Thunderbird2 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course. I'm not that familiar with this use of bioacoustics, as I already said. Will fix. --Yerpo 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of disambiguation pages[edit]

Hello, here you wrote "Good point, but the bit especially has other uses too (eg communications). How about "a unit of information used, for example, to quantify ..."

Why not stick to the common wording "is a unit of information or computer storage"? It is used on almost all pages like Megabyte and so on. The ", for example," looks unnecessarily eloquent for a disambiguation page and "to quantify" unnecessarily strays from the common wording. On the other hand, if you think "to quantify" is a worthful addition, it would probably be best to add this to the other pages as well. Then concerning "other uses", I disagree, because "information or computer storage" should cover all cases. If you transfer some data in "communications" what you transfer is "information". Or could you explicitly give some example not covered by this definition? --217.237.151.53 07:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The objective of the change I made was to move the debate about the prefixes away from the disambiguation pages and on to the articles themselves. For that reason the wording was carefully chosen to be innocuous. I agree that "a unit of information or computer storage" is more concise and I can’t think of any example not covered buy it. In fact, the bare “a unit of information” also covers everything, but I am not sure if it will be considered uncontroversial by others. If you make a suggestion along these lines on wp:mosnum I will not object. Thunderbird2 07:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangled? No. Just not to your taste.[edit]

Please remember that it is possible to take offence at edit summaries, too.

The sentence was grammatical, intelligible, and informative. It was just not to your taste. It's ok that it isn't to your taste and it's fine that you've simplified it. I just was not keen on the edit summary.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terse style of edit summaries can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. Looking at my edit again, I think my main objection to your choice of words is that while a knot is a unit of speed, knots is not. Could I have phrased the edit summary more carefully? Undoubtably, but my words were directed at the sentence, not at its author. No offence was intended :-) Thunderbird2 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there was not an intent to offend. Interestingly, unlike the SI scheme where the plural is not present, "knots" does really seem to be the unit, with the singular only being used for the unlikey single knot, or perhaps the "unitary knot". Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

units[edit]

Hi. I saw your recent edit to Fujitsu Eagle. Good work! May I make a suggestion, however? If you put something like "tidy up per WP:UNITS" in the edit summary, that gives other editors a direct link to where the correct style is documented. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I agree it would make it easier to understand the justification for the change. I'll try to follow it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

autoformatting proposal[edit]

Thanks for your comment, Thunderbird, which hit the nail on the head so squarely. I think Alvulus, and possibly another of the antagonists, had a hand in pushing for the system to be developed back years ago. It really hasn't turned out well, with several major disadvantages that make the compulsion to use it rather inappropriate. Yes, I'm proposing that it merely be optional, supported by rules in the manner of our guidelines for ENGVAR at MOS. Here's the proposal that shouldn't really be causing so much useless discussion. Tony (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Tony. You and I don't always agree (and why should we?), but your proposal is carefully considered and well written. I can understand that some may suggest minor changes (though none spring to mind), but the outright opposition it has encountered is puzzling. I wish you luck. Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

autoformatting[edit]

Aha! I wonder whether he's responding to the activity at MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T

Begin forwarded message:

From: bugzilla-daemon@mail.wikimedia.org Date: 18 December 2007 1:27:27 PM To: tony1@iinet.net.au Subject: [Bug 4582] Use date format preference on unlinked dates

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4582

Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> changed:

          What    |Removed                     |Added

            Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
        Resolution|WONTFIX                     |

--- Comment #73 from Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> 2007-12-18 02:27:25 UTC --- Let's keep it open for now and see what happens...

Format number[edit]

I hope I have a solution to formatting numbers you approve of. Please see this update, as well as the post immediately preceding that one. Greg L (my talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll read through all the new stuff and make my views known. By the way, in case you're interested in the history, there was almost unanimous agreement a couple of months ago to include a "no spaces to the right" rule. (See original edit and subsequent discussion). I opposed it though, and my views were respected - I think the others got tired of arguing with me and moved on to other things. In a nutshell that's why there's no explicit advice now. Anyway, now the proposal is the opposite one and I expect it to get a tough (but fair) ride. Thunderbird2 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative forum to accomplish this[edit]

Thunderbird2, Jimp and I went off on our own in an effort to resolve our differences and try to actually accomplish something productive. Please read my initial post to Jimp here, and then read what’s going on over on my talk page here. It’s a lot less frustrating of a forum than what’s going on over on Grouping of digits: New specific proposal using {{formatnum}}. At a certain point, in discussion forums, reaching any sort of consensus becomes highly unlikely and believe my proposal will not fare well there. I’ve chalked up the latest goings-on there as just another bug-splat on your windshield of life. I hope you join us on my talk page. Greg L (my talk) 18:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]