User talk:TomTheHand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
January 2005 – April 2006 May 2006 – June 2006 June 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 – September 2006

[edit] Ship cleanups (AKA's)

Thanks for doing this stuff. I overlooked some of it when I was adding these articles, since there were close to a hundred of them, I was trying to get 'em done quickly and there was a LOT of Wikifying involved in the DANFS material. I have two questions:

1) What's all the nbsp stuff? (I'm guessing it's to keep things from breaking at the end of a line.)

2) Why all the emphasis on wikifying dates? (I normally try to do it, but I don't know why it's done.)

Thanks again. Lou Sander 14:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Lou,

No problem. Categorizing is sort of my "thing." Both the nbsp stuff and the date linking are connected with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

According to the units of measurement section, "Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Preferably, use   for the space (25 kg) so that it does not break lines." The article non-breaking space has some more info. I use nbsp's in places sort of outside the exact Manual of Style guidelines, in places like task force numbers (TF 38 and such), but I think those uses are in line with the intent of non-breaking spaces.

According to the dates containing a month and a day section, "If a date includes both a month and a day, then the date should normally be linked to allow readers' date preferences to work, displaying the reader's chosen format." Whether an article is written with days before months (22 February) or months before days (February 22), if the dates are linked then they'll automatically be displayed according to the reader's preference. I also make certain formatting changes, like changing "22 to 24 February" to "22 February to 24 February", because otherwise someone's date preferences could have them seeing "22 to February 24". Some other users choose to have no date links at all in those situations, but I think they're useful.

I do all of this with AWB regular expressions, so I'm not manually going through and fixing dates. Instead, I feed AWB a list of articles that probably need categorization, then I manually add categories, let AWB automatically do date and unit formatting, and check over the whole thing. I still make mistakes, but I'm getting better. TomTheHand 15:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I had no idea about the date stuff. I've looked at the various Wikipedia manuals, but since they're edited by committee, I don't find them very user-friendly. I guess I need to revisit some of them. If you haven't already found it, there's a small gold mine of articles that could use the AWB treatment -- all the original articles listed on my user page (beneath all the biographical cruft). Also, Malo had added Metric dimensions to the tables in some of my ship articles, but I didn't have the time or qualifications to do it to most of 'em. Maybe AWB or similar can help. Lou Sander 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you found the gold mine!  ;-) Lou Sander 17:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I sure did. I'm actually working my way through everything in Category:Amphibious assault ship classes. I had gotten down to the T's before discovering the amphibious cargo ships and adding them to the category back in mid-August. I was then on Wikibreak for a bit, busy with real-life work. Now I'm back up at A, taking care of Artemis, but I should be back at T by the end of the day.

I agree with some of your sentiments about the Manuals of Style, and I've by no means read all of them, but I do refer to them to get a starting point on formatting issues.

As my current project is ship categorization, I probably won't be touching the other articles you've created at this time, but I'll keep them in mind for the future. I don't have AWB set up to automatically add metric units, and I think it'd be difficult to do, but it's an important and worthwhile project so it might be something I'll look at one day. TomTheHand 17:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It just occurs to me that when I've Wikified dates, I've just done the year for the first time it appears in the table. Sounds like I should do it for every instance, so the date formatting software can do its thing. Lou Sander 19:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for date formatting purposes, where a full day, month and year are available the year should be linked as well. The year should be linked separately from the day+month: [[February 22]] [[1942]]. However, if you just have a month and year, linking them doesn't provide formatting.

That actually brings up a problem with the way I do things. There is a date format preference for ISO 8601 dates (YYYY-MM-DD). If you select it, it only formats full day+month+year sets and doesn't touch day+month links. This causes a problem with a phrase like "22 to 24 February, 1942," which I'd normally clean up as "22 February to 24 February 1942." If a user has set ISO 8601 dates, they'll see "22 February to 1942-02-24." I still think the way I clean dates up is good, and I doubt many people use ISO 8601 formatting and get bitten by this, but I still worry if I should be doing something different. Doing "22 February 1942 to 24 February 1942" seems to be taking things entirely too far.TomTheHand 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, BE BOLD! If there's a better way, somebody will find your edits and fix 'em. ;-) Lou Sander 19:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AWB

If you know how to turn monobook tools into AWB code, I would be grateful for your help. I have created a new monobook tool with the aim of tidying up ship infoboxes. It is at: User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/general.js

I have only just started it and it is fairly easy to improve. However, I don't know how to make it suitable for AWB users. bobblewik 21:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Making it usable in AWB is pretty simple, and I'll look into adapting some of the expressions soon. One suggestion I'd like to make is using ×, the multiplication symbol, instead of the letter x for quantities. TomTheHand 14:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Using ×, the multiplication symbol, sounds fine to me. bobblewik 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. bobblewik 17:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant Categories

Wow, doing a lot of work. Rename your user account "TomTheMachine".

But, noticed for USS Slater (DE-766) it now has these cats

• Category:Cannon class destroyer escorts|Slater (DE-766)
• Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States|Slater (DE-766)
• Category:Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy|Slater (DE-766)
• Category:World War II destroyer escorts of the United States|Slater (DE-766)
• Category:Frigates of Greece|Slater (DE-766)
• Category:Frigates of the Hellenic Navy|Slater (DE-766)
• Category:Museum ships|Slater (DE-766)

Generally I have been trying to remove redundant cats (Frigates of Greece==Frigates of the Hellenic Navy) and (Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States == Frigates and destroyer escorts of the United States Navy). Or even should we build hierarchies to avoid multiple cats per article. Since Cannon class destroyer escorts is part of US Navy just put that category under US Navy category. I noticed some of these cats were recently created so I was wondering if you have some sort of plan for the categorization? --MarsRover 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a pretty extensive plan for categorization; check it out here and join WP:SHIPS if you're interested. I agree with you about the redundancy, but unfortunately we were unable to agree on whether to categorize by country or by navy and we're doing both as a middle ground. I would much rather just do it by country. TomTheHand 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hummm, seems like you should have won that augument. By Navy makes close to zero sense. Either your have something that is confusing like knowing "Hellenic Navy" is "Greek Navy" or it simply makes that name longer "US" -> "US Navy". It doesn't help categorize it any better most countries only have one navy. --MarsRover 03:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Well, if you weigh in on the issue over at WP:SHIPS we might come to a decision to change the way we do things. TomTheHand 13:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The return

Guess who's back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ossara

At least, it very much looks like Copperchair; we should keep an eye on him. PBP 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'll definitely keep an eye on him. TomTheHand 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Compare Ossara's contributions with Special:Contributions/190.10.0.87, posted here by Rangeley back on the 31st. It seems clear that they're the same person, and it also seems clear, looking at the two together, that they are Copperchair. I'd like to observe for another day or so, though, assuming he doesn't do anything disruptive. If he's disruptive I'll block him immediately, but if not I'd like to collect more evidence before doing it. TomTheHand 00:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My VP mistake at Nuclear weapon

That was certainly a mistake! I remember the vandalism, but I'm not quite sure how the mis-reversion happened. It looks like three of us were chasing the same edit. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Mr Stephen 10:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've worked it out now, a user had vandalised two pages; I fixed one & warned him, then went to Nuclear weapon and rolled back, obviously after Trnj2000 had fixed it. Coincidentally, a bit later Maury Markowitz accused Trnj2000 of vandalism to the article! diff Mr Stephen 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sloops cathead template

The tag {{Cathead sloops of the|United Kingdom}} on the page Category:Sloops of the United Kingdom returns "Sloops of the United Kingdom include all sloops-of-war designed, built, or operated by the United Kingdom." Ideally, I think it should read "Sloops of the United Kingdom includes all sloops-of-war designed, built, or operated by the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom." If you agree, is it possible to tweak the template? Emoscopes ^Talk 17:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly fix the "includes" issue. The problem with the "Royal Navy" part is that it would be necessary to add an additional input to the template (for navy name), and then every category that uses that template will need to pass in the additional input. That'd be easy enough to do for the sloops template, since only two categories use it right now, but it's something I'm not eager to implement across the board. TomTheHand 17:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. No problems about the navy, how about just wikilinking the country then? Emoscopes ^Talk 17:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're way ahead of me. Lovely stuff. Keep up the good work :). Emoscopes ^Talk 17:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. Yeah, already had the country linked. Linking to navies is a good idea, but it multiplies the workload. We need to have a good, long discussion about informative templates in the future, but there's so much other stuff to do now that template issues don't have my full attention. TomTheHand 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ships by Navy CFR tags

All eight are tagged. Josh 21:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ships by country

Ships, like other articles, should not be categorized both in a category and a subsequent sub-category as a general rule. Thus for example a ship should not be listed under both Aircraft carriers of X and Escort carriers of X. Instead, if it belongs in Escort carriers of X, then it should be there only. There are a number of ships that are listed at multiple levels. I am cleaning this up as I see them, but the intent is not to remove ships from by country categorization. Josh 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In this particular case, what redundancy do you see? Are you talking about an example like Category:Aircraft carriers of France and Category:Cold War aircraft carriers of France? Though Cold War aircraft carriers is a subcategory of aircraft carriers of France, that's a cross-structure link so someone can cross over from Ships by country to Ships by era. Is there a different redundancy you see? If you want to perform a mass recategorization of ship articles in contradiction to the proposal on WP:SHIPS, which seemed to meet with general approval, please discuss it there instead of undoing my work on your own. TomTheHand 17:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Keep in mind that this contravenes broader guidelines, but that's always okay per application if it does meet with general agreement. Josh 17:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I kept the categorization guidelines in mind, but they do say that exceptions can be made when they're helpful. I think it's helpful to be able to look at all aircraft carriers of France at once, for example. Was it the country/era issue that you had in mind? As I said, I sort of think of that as an inter-structure link rather than a real parent/child relationship, so it doesn't bug me too much. If I had to eliminate the redundancy, I personally would probably do it by removing the era->country link rather than by removing the country from the ships. TomTheHand 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which Jack?

Was your change of USS Oriskany (CV-34) to a 48 star jack in error, or are we editing to different criteria? Please chime in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Which Jack?. Thanks. FWIW, I've been drilling down through various "WWII footypes of US" categories and changing anything with a final decomission before 7/4/1959 to 48 stars. --J Clear 17:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Why change the jack on the USS Thresher (SSN-593) to a 48-star version? There were 50 states when the boat was lost in 1963 -- wouldn't they have been using a 50-star jack?--A. B. 03:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary was in error; I didn't change the jack to a 48-star version. Sorry about that; when I AWB I sometimes botch edit summmaries! TomTheHand 12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, all I did was strip the canton from the flag files that someone else made, but I did learn about the inner workings of SVG files in the process. I'm glad I could help out. Good job with that template, it should make future additions or changes a snap. --Dual Freq 00:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power band

A belated nod for the diagram at power band. I neglected to "watch" the page, hence my tardiness. :-) ENeville 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi. Ok, they accepted my proposal for categories to be merged. So what do I win now? I've been watching my mail, but nothing's come through so far. Do they send it FedEx, or what? thanks. signed, Curious in NY :-) --Sm8900 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy merge? If so, it's already been done. Here's the process:

1. 1. At the end of the discussion period, an administrator looks at the comments and decides what the community has decided. The administrator closes the discussion, listing the decision at the top.
   2. The administrator lists the decision on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Working.
   3. In the case of a rename, a volunteer Wikipedian will create a new category with the new name and copy the content from the old name to the new one.
   4. Volunteer Wikipedians will go to each article that uses the category and update them. In the case of a merge or rename, they will change the old category to the new one. In the case of a delete, they'll remove the category that's being deleted from every article where it's used.
   5. When the category to be merged/renamed/deleted is finally empty, a volunteer will remove it from the To be emptied or moved section to the Ready for deletion section of CFD:W.
   6. An administrator will delete the empty category.

It's a pretty manual process, so if it's something you'd like to help with, they'd be happy to have you. There's no need to ask permission or sign up anywhere; just go to CFD Working and jump in.

In the case of the Aircraft carriers category, volunteers removed or changed all references to Category:Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy about a week and a half ago. TomTheHand 21:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Thanks for the answer. that's good to know. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Londonderry

I'd like a third opinion before this gets into an edit/revert war (perhaps too late). Check the last few edits of USS Charles F. Hughes (DD-428). I added a few reasons on the discussion page, too.--J Clear 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So, would you say . . .

Does Robert Johnson deserve a tag for not citing sources? Seems like the person who admitted the article was not sourced on my talk page is the one who removed the tag.

See:[1] Mattisse(talk) 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe the article deserves the tag. Because Aguerriero understands that he was mistaken, I don't believe he'll remove the tag again. There shouldn't be any further problem and hopefully someone will step up to the plate and cite the sources. TomTheHand 22:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 22:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timmy12 slips up

Timmy12 just slipped up and identified herself as Mattisse by claiming to have placed tags which were actually placed by Mattisse. See the last point on this request for checkuser. This makes Mattisse's 19th sockpuppet and 4th or 5th sockpuppeting incident. Isn't it about time for an indef block? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe I'm too involved in this situation to make that kind of decision. Assuming that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet, I would say yes, at this point an extended block is probably necessary. I am generally on Mattisse's side on the tagging issue, but I think the sockpuppetry is unacceptable. Again assuming that Timmy12 is a sockpuppet, Mattisse has gone through great effort to be deceptive this time around. I absolutely feel the request for checkuser is justified and I hope a conclusive result is found. TomTheHand 18:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. There have been claims the she has previously been cleared by checkuser, but whenever I have asked for a link to the result, I have not gotten any response. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 18:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unwelcomed message from me

I am asking you to at least look at two cases: I know you don't want to hear from me but maybe you will do this for Wikipedia.

If you would just look at the following cases: -- I am not asking you to enter into the fray.

1. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival
2. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse

I was cleared of being a Sock Puppet through CheckUser on October 26, 2005.

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mattisse

I am hoping you might be imterested because of your comments on my talk page regarding the citation issues:[2] which involve the same people and issues now.

Other issues involved in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-03 Starwood Festival are

• Check Rosencomet linkspamming - They are Ronsencomet's festivals.
• performers at Starwood: [3].
• performers at Winterstar Symposium:[4].
• Performers at Association for Consciousness Exploration:[5].

• On each of these pages there are internal links to Starwood and also exteranl links to the pages to the Starwood site:[6].
• Starwood Festival
• Brushwood Folklore Center
• WinterStar Symposium
• Winterstar Symposium
• SpiritDrum Festival
• Trance Mission

Sincerely, Mattisse(talk) 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'd rather not get involved in the mediation case; I'm just not cool-headed enough to mediate anything. I signed the "outside view" of your RFC, which seems to summarize the situation well; I think the way you get treated is irrational and terrible and I know you're editing Wikipedia in good faith.

Please don't hesitate to post here for any reason. In reference to the discussion directly above this one, Ekajati presented some facts that looked suspicious, and I agreed that a RFCU was appropriate. I don't think an RFCU is a bad thing; if you're innocent, as you were, it exonerates you. I hope that I made it clear above that I supported a block if and only if Timmy12 was a sock puppet, as sockpuppetry bothers me a lot. I think your sockpuppetry in the past was a serious mistake, but as long as it doesn't happen again people need to stop trying to punish you for it. TomTheHand 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate and value your support. The RFC was surprising in that I did get some support when I didn't expect any except from Salix Alba and BostonMA. Hopefully you will have faith in me. You have helped me tremedously by sticking up for me over the sourcing issues. I do thank you. Mattisse(talk) 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallout graph

Hello, Cadmium! Did you create Image:Totalexternaldoseratecher.jpg, or just fetch it from an external source? If you are the creator, someone on the talk page for the image requested clarification on the units of the Y axis. I get the impression, from reading the title of the Y axis, that it's a unitless ratio comparing the dose rate at Chernobyl to, perhaps, normal background radiation or something. I'd like to clarify that point on the picture's description, but I'm writing you to make sure I'm correct before I touch anything. Let me know! Thanks! TomTheHand 19:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, aboutthe gamma dose rate vs time graph. I drew it. The diagram does not need units as the y axis is an expression of a unitless ratio of the dose on day x to day 1. The absolute dose rate will depend on how much fallout is deposited in the site. Not that the graph is made using some approixations, such as the assumption that no separation of the different chemical elements in the fallout occurs. This is not quite true in real life. But to add this separation would be very very hard.

None of the graphs of dose rate which I have drawn as functions of time are absolute dose rates they are all relative dose rates.Cadmium

I don't quite understand. You said that the y axis is a ratio of the dose on day x to day 1. Wouldn't that mean that at day 1, the leftmost portion of the graph, the ratio should be 1:1? TomTheHand 21:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It is best to think of it the other way arround, the level one is normally at some point in the distant future (oftein off the x axis).Cadmium

So it's not the ratio of day x to day 1, but rather the ratio of day x to some point in the future after all the decay has occurred? Or perhaps the ratio between day x and day -1 (the day before the accident)? TomTheHand 21:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The number is not important, by changing the level of fallout (amount which arrived on day one) the value will change. The important thing is the ratio of the dose on day one to day x. Also the shape of the graph is important.Cadmium

I'm sorry, I'm not expressing myself well. I'm trying to understand what you mean by day one and day x. Could you please explain? I thought that "day one" is the day of maximum radiation; the day of the accident. I thought "day x" is whatever point I'm looking at on the x-axis. However, according to what you're saying I must be mistaken. TomTheHand 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Day one (and sometimes zero hour) is the time of greatest exposure, that is correct. The shape of the graph is the important thing, all doses are realtive to each other.Cadmium

Alright, cool. Then why isn't the y-axis value equal to 1 at day 1? If it's the ratio of the dose on day x to day one, then when day x = 1 the ratio should be 1:1, right? TomTheHand 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may wish to add them to User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns. -- Jreferee 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Haley unsourced

A Bill Haley person says on the talk page that using a short list at the end method of sourcing is enough. Will you stand behind me on this one? Mattisse(talk) 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse,

I apologize for not responding to this in a timely fashion. I've been sick since last Friday and I'm just now recovering, so I haven't been contributing much to Wikipedia. My head's been much too foggy to get into any kind of real debate.

Though I agree that Bill Haley would be improved by inline citation, it's kind of a "gray area" that I'd rather not get in a fight about. I generally feel that listing a bunch of sources at the end of an article does not satisfy WP:V. WP:V states that any reader should be able to easily verify any fact in the article. Generally, listing sources at the end does not allow this, because it's unreasonable to ask a reader to track down three or more books and look through each of them to find the fact.

In addition, I feel it leads to a "good enough" attitude, where an article lists a few sources, therefore it must satisfy WP:V. In reality, the article generally existed in an unsourced form for a long time before one conscientious editor made some edits and added sources for them at the end. Those edits are theoretically sourced, but all the previous ones aren't, and subsequent edits aren't sourced either.

People constantly claim that WP:CITE is a guideline, not a policy, and that's true. Nevertheless, I feel that following that guideline is the best way to conform to the WP:V policy.

However, I don't feel comfortable getting involved in Bill Haley. Why? Well, 23skidoo pretty much rewrote the article, and cited sources for his rewrite. Since then, the content of the article hasn't changed substantially. It's still hard to verify any one fact, but it's not one of those articles that had a couple of sources posted three years ago, has had a ton of content added since then, and is still claimed to be adequately sourced.

I hope you understand. It's not that I disagree, but these debates are hard on me and I think both your efforts and mine would be better spent elsewhere, on a more egregious violation of WP:V. TomTheHand 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! Hope you feel better. Mattisse(talk) 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm doing a lot better, and hope to be near-100% by Thanksgiving. One thing I might suggest is adding fact tags to various facts that were not added in 23skidoo's rewrite. For example, I think the first paragraph of his biography, which contains a lot of "some sources say this, but they're wrong," is in need of verification. If we're discounting some sources in favor of others, we need to state which ones are right and why they're better. I'll gladly back you up if anyone removes fact tags from the article. TomTheHand 16:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copperchair

Since several posts to WP:AN/I haven't produced any results, I'm giving WP:AE a try. I posted a report there about Copperchair's frequent sockpuppetry. [7] Hopefully they'll be able/willing to bump up Copperchair's 1 year + 1 day block and do something about the frequent generation of new sockpuppets from the 190.10.0.XX IP range. --Bobblehead 04:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, wasn't as successful as I'd hope. Thatcher131 updated the block on Copperchair's account and extended it to Nov 22, 2007. [8] --Bobblehead 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject NCSU

Since you went to NCSU, maybe you should join WikiProject NCSU, which was started today. --Shanedidona 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T-800

I know you want to remove all of the OR from the Terminator articles. So I figured I'd ask, since no one is responding on the T-800 talk page. I haven't found one hard reference for the name T-800 or T-850. The first two movies refer to him as a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101. The third refers to him as a T-101. All pages mentioning the T-800 are fan pages with no references to canonical sources either. If I'm going to start changing every page that mentions the T-800, I want to make sure I'm in the right. ColdFusion650 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't watched the movies lately, but T-800 is so prevalent that I assumed it must be in them somewhere. If it's not, it should definitely be removed. I would suggest that you change one prominent page first, and see if anyone gets upset and/or comes up with a source, before changing every page that mentions it. Without a canonical source, it's got no business in our articles. TomTheHand 00:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed all references in the main T-800 article, but I didn't change the name, as that would require setting up redirects and all that stuff. Anyway, hopefully this will get someone's attention. ColdFusion650 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T12 & Viaducts

I'm curious about this edit: [9]. You linked to viaduct, an article which has no mention of military uses of the term. I assume from context that a viaduct in this use refers to something like a reinforced concrete tunnel used to transport personnel and equipment, but I'm not able to find an article on anything like this. Maybe you could do some rooting around? If there really is no article on this, the example should be unlinked or removed. I'm working on the assumption that you're not talking about the type of bridge here, since I can't see a bridge meriting a bunker buster. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about a bridge. The bombs in question were supposed to penetrate into the ground near the viaduct, explode (causing an earthquake-like effect), and cause pillars of the viaduct to collapse. It's my understanding that because of their durability and because they were relatively small (narrow) targets it was virtually impossible to destroy them conventionally (by simply dropping bombs on them). TomTheHand 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out Grand Slam bomb for more info; it talks about actual usage of the bombs against viaducts. It seems that in addition to an "earthquake" effect, the explosion deep underground would create a cavern and the foundation of the viaduct would collapse into it. TomTheHand 03:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I suppose that makes less sense now in the days of smart bombs, but I will add a brief explanation to this effect to the article. Thank you. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bugatti 3000 hp

Thanks for talking through the bugatti 3000 hp thing. I hadent looked at it that way. I dont have a problem not having it in the article! Keep up the great work it is much appreciated Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chris! Sorry for being so stubborn about it, but I feel like I had solid reasons. TomTheHand 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bugatti vs McLaren F1 (Trivia Section)

Hello. You said not to make the edit I made without a source. Well, wikipedia is the source. All you have to do is go to the Veyron page and the McLaren F1 page, look at the 0-100 and 0-100 MPH times, and do some simple arithmetic. The acceration data does NOT support Clarksons claim. Period. I'm not providing any new data, thus I have nothing to "source". I'm just looking at the data and explaining what it means and how this data contradicts Clarkson.

Wikipedia itself cannot be cited as a source, and you cannot just cherry-pick a 0-200 figure from one source, 0-100 and 0-200 figures from another, do a little math, and say that Clarkson is wrong. TomTheHand 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, have added external citations to support the acceleration numbers I am using. I'm not saying Clarkson is wrong, by the way, I'm saying that published data contradicts this claim. Whether to believe Clarkson or the data is left as an exercise for the reader. After further research, there is no official 0-200MPH time for the Veyron, as Bugatti uses km/h. I've updated my edit to more fairly show "both sides" of the story. Personally, I think everyone will be better served if my edit remains, though if you feel it's not "official" enough, add some sort of disclaimer as such, rather than tweaking it entirely. After all, why should we just take "Clarkson's word" for it?

I've removed your addition again. Getting figures from all over the place and doing your own math to prove or disprove someone's statement is called original research and isn't allowed on Wikipedia. We're not taking "Clarkson's word" as gospel; we're reporting what Clarkson said. TomTheHand 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct sir. I have added a short statement with a reference to a source in such a way that it is no longer "original research". The source I'm using is the same source listed earlier in the Veyron's entry for the performance figures in the Final Numbers section.

Looks good to me. TomTheHand 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and guidance in this matter. As an aside, what should be done when valid sources provide conflicting information? Which wikipedia rule handles such a situation? IMHO, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, thus, when there is conflicting information, you have two options - 1) Cite each/all sources and note the conflict, leaving it to the reader which source to "believe" or, 2) Don't cite ANY of the conflicting sources. What say you?

If both sources are reliable, I believe it's best to cite each and note the conflict. Note that I don't believe you should "stretch" at all to make one fact correlate to another; I think that pulling together different acceleration figures and interpreting them yourself is original research but I think what you've done just now is right on the mark. TomTheHand 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)