Talk:Reading spark plugs for racing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] FORMATTING
I had hoped to be able to copy and paste this article then edit it before saveing. I could not find any way to remove the word wrap problem so I saved it TEMPORARILY to go read help files intending to come back in minutes with the answer and finish editing it. Within seconds I get the "considered for deletion" message so I don't want to waste time figureing it out when it will be all for naught. If anyone knows how to fix the word wrap proplem feel free. Otherwise I'd like this page deleted. No idea how to delete it. --=Motorhead 19:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Many Thanks
Thanks Samw for the help fixing the formatting
[edit] Moved from page
This was moved from the page, in response to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reading spark plugs for racing
Wikisource, from what I see is a disorganized wasteland of miscellaneous chatter. A place where anyone looking for this information will never find it. Therefore it may as well be deleted. That should satisfy the “handwringers” and the "delete on sight anything I know nothing about” crowds. Not to mention the vote was
- 1 Delete
- 1 Merge
- 2 Transwiki
- 2 Keep
...And transwiki wins?
When I heard of Wikipedia I thought, marvelous! Finally a source where someone can both find and contribute information that is ignored by other encyclopedias. A resource which has the potential to capture the vast knowledge of all aspects of the human experience. A COMPLETE reference (eventually in time). If it is to be just the same as all the others, who needs wikipedia? Encarta, Britannica and all the rest can do that job. What is encyclopedic? If it is only what is found in other encyclopedias and anything else is rejected then why waste time trying to add to it, knowing that the effort will be for nothing. --=Motorhead 16:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(unsigned by Motorhead (talk • contribs)).
[edit] Integration into Wikipedia
In think the problem with Reading spark plugs for racing is that the technical depth of the contributions far exceed the current knowledge in Wikipedia and people don't know what to make of the contributions. With enough existing background in that article, it can logically grow into an expert article on racing. User:Samw
- The reading spark plugs page is hard to classify because while it seems to deal with spark plugs, it really has to do with diagnosis using spark plugs as a media. It is no more about spark plugs than a book on Shakespeare is about books.
- That’s why I didn’t add it to an existing page in the first place. After reading all the pertinent sites I could find, I placed it on its own with links to and from other pages in a logical, sequential fashion. Thinking the only way to see it would be to link to it or search for it directly. Still I don’t see a comfortable place to merge it into.
- It should be in a place organized something like this: Encyclopedia>technology>automotive>engines>high performance engines>High performance techniques>reading spark plugs for racing
- Rather than: Encyclopedia>technology>automotive>engines>components>spark plugs
- The page that it can be merged with nicely does not yet exist. To make it a stand-alone article might be needlessly difficult when, once a suitable page does exist, it can be simply transferred as is. I thought placing it on its own as a stub would be the best interim solution. I didn’t think it would enrage anyone. Really, who will see it that is not looking directly for it?
- What do you think?
-
- Wikipedia is lacking in industrial technology articles, including automotive technologies. It was me that started engine knocking without distinguishing pre-ignition and detonation. Likewise my stub on tire rotation has never been improved to include all the rotation pattersn. We don't even have an article on engine tune ups! Yes, building up material on high-performance engines should lead this article being integrated properly into Wikipedia. Samw 02:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- See the discussion on "complex numbers" at Talk:List of indices of refraction where an anonymous user can't understand the article but doesn't dare change it because it was authored by a physics professor! The obvious solution there is to give more background and to explain and define the concepts. I think we need to do the same here. Samw 12:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Google shows no hits on "Reading spark plugs for racing" but almost 1000 hits for "Reading spark plugs". I'm leaning towards renaming this to the more generic "reading spark plugs". What do others think? Samw 01:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- google? Motorhead
-
-
-
- Yes, see http://www.google.com and search for "reading spark plugs" and click "search within results" to get a hit-count. (I'm sure there's a better way to get a hit count but I'm not smart enough to know! :-) Samw 02:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
oops I clicked enter while writing and sent only the headline heres the rest hehe I get 111000 hits for reading spark plugs and 109000 for reading spark plugs for racing on regular google search. Anyhow, there are two types of page on the topic. The vast majority giving the standard party line which might be of some use for those working on old beat up tractors or smoking car engines. That information is absolutely useless for racing/tuneing/high performace purposes. So far I have found only ONE site giveing that kind of information(I linked to it in the article). Knowing that the information presented was rare,unique and hard to come by I couldn't bring myself to call it just reading spark plugs. I thought it would be lost amid the 100000 other sources so I added that racing bit to distinguish it. Let me show you the difference... --=Motorhead 02:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
GOOD site http://www.strappe.com/plugs.html
BAD site http://www.motocross.com/motoprof/moto/mcycle/plug2/plug2.htm
Of the good I find only one, all the rest are bad. I can't believe the myths have spread so damn far.
It gives me the willies to think of aircraft mechanics using this drivel... http://www.ultralightnews.ca/articles/readingsparkplugs.htm
This one gives completely different but mostly wrong information. http://www.dragstuff.com/techarticles/how-to-read-plugs.html
Heres one correctly saying that the main stream sites are bogus and preports to sell you the information I have in the article.lol http://racingsecrets.com/spark_plug_reading.shtml Only $139 usd!
I know the title is cumbersome but I think it has to be set apart somehow, by title or placement.--=Motorhead 02:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- I totally agree the information in this article is valuable and valid. The issue is how to integrate it into Wikipedia including the title. BTW, you need to search in google with quotes to get exact matches. There are no exact matches for "reading spark plugs for racing" other than mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Wikipedia article titles typically are generic search terms, not long scientific research paper titles. How about having this as a section under "Reading spark plugs"? BTW, how's my rewrite of the intro? I've also moved generic spark plug info to spark plug and will delete it from here so this article can focus on the "reading" aspects. Samw 03:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The rewrite is cool but for the word "wear". I'm trying come up with something else. characteristic markings? Wear is not something you'd ever see while tuning. I like the expansion you added to it in "spark plugs". Some of the stuff in the pre amble might be needed in the reading article though. It was written as a stand alone guide and there are references later that might not make sense once its moved.--=Motorhead 03:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- I'm slowly learning the topic. :-) The problem though is that Wikipedia doesn't even have a Reading spark plugs article yet. Can we start with that first? Since that's a 'published' topic, would it be OK for now to make that a subsection of the existing spark plug article & split that out when it's sufficiently lenghthy? Samw 03:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A reading spark plugs article can be done. It would need copyright permission pics to make it useful though. --=Motorhead 11:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How about 'Spark plug interpretation' as a title ? --Hooperbloob 00:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] gap styles
The gap description is there only to show that the information would apply only to those two types. Other types would not give the same results but someone might think so. For instance very little can be read from a surface gap plug and it has no side electrode to speak of. The section sort of goes along with establishing the proper conditions for reading the plugs.
Over in spark plugs I think a large expansion can be done concerning gap styles and the reasons for them though.--=Motorhead 03:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comments after wikisource removed
The decision on VfD for Reading spark plugs for racing was to wikisource. The article has now been rewritten so that's no longer necessary. Let me know if you have any concerns. Samw 19:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problems with this article, The rewrite is excellent. In fact this is probably up there with some of the best wiki articles. Megan1967 06:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- To me it still reads like a how-to guide. I do agree it's very well-written though. Radiant_* 12:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vote for Deletion
This article survived a procedural Vote for Deletion after being transwikied. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 16:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Here we go again
Same old same old. If you want a clone of britanica why bother with wikipedia? Britanica (or encarta etc) doesnt have stuff like this, Wikipedia DOES. Seriously, Who needs wikipedia if all it has is the same inane "lowest common denominator" goop as all the commercial ones? You can be just like them or you can be special. To be just like them is to doom the experiment to failure and gives away the greatest point of strength wiki has, the ability to present RARE information.--=Motorhead 01:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Goes for me too. Gzuckier 17:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggested alternate title
I've suggested above (but no response) that the title should be renamed to "Spark plug interpretation". This would broaden the scope of the article since this process also applies to general mechanics who diagnose fuel systems on passenger vehicles and motorcycles. Racing is what the author is most familiar with but I think the more general subject would be much more palatable to the naysayers.--Hooperbloob 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately trying to use the information in this article for general purposes will not work. This information is only for engines in prime condition with a new spark plug and rigidly controlled testing procedures. Only then will much of the information be useful. I would just like to spare someone out there all the mumbo jumbo by busting some of the myths of which there are plenty.
- Did you know that Champion has one spark plug reading brochure for the public and one just for insiders? The “special” one has lots of good information in it while the general public/consumer version is only to tell if your lawn tractor has any rings left in it. The do this because the general consumer will never see the spark plug as it is presented here. This article presents the inside information to all who are interested and distinguishes it from the consumer information that pervades the topic.--=Motorhead 01:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, the article as-is focusses on controlled conditions and that is why I think some folks think its too narrow a subject to be included here. I think if the article was expanded to include the more general situations and make the most of the current article a subsection under 'Racing' then it could be added to by others.--Hooperbloob 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
