User talk:Romfordian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Romfordian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Simply south 10:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

[edit] References and Sources

Is there any guidance in Wikipedia on when to directly reference a statement, and when to include fact(s) and give a general "Source" listing.

My current practice is to directly include a "Reference" to anything that may be questioned, is counter-intuitive, or is an opinion directly attibutable to a particular person, document or publication, otherwise to give a "Source".

Romfordian 09:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources should be what you're looking for. KTC 09:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thats pretty much it, also you don't always have to link references to statements in the article, so wp:cite for more info.--KerotanLeave Me a Message Have a nice day :) 09:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preserving original units

Hello Romfordian, thank you for your extensive recent edits to several rail-related articles; switching the infobox contents to use auto convert macros. For the moment I have temporarilly reverted your changes to the British Rail Class 59, British Rail Class 66 and British Rail Class 67 articles. I noticed that several of these edits had removed a previously accurate figure and replaced it with an inaccurate approximation in another unit base (mostly replacement of metric with imperial).

I do believe that the Template:Convert macros are an excellent improvement and I would be keen to see you re-add your changes in a way that preserves the current values contained in the article as the primary units. The converted approximation from the macro should be the one shown in (brackets). We can remember what happened with the Mars Surveyor '98 program after a double conversion between metric, imperial and back again with rounding at each stage!

Once again, my appreciations for your enthusiasm and I look forwarding to see a variation on your previous edits re-added. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sladen. Not really surprised that someone reverted these but really appreciate you letting me know the reason :) It's a toss-up between consistency across the piece and usage of what was/is current at the time of order/delivery (I'm guessing that from the 59 onwards, the specs were in metric). I'm happy to re-do with an autoconvert from metric to imperial where I can - although I'll have to write a specific kN-lbf template to go with the lbf-kN that I wrote for the older diesels. However, I'm tempted to keep to mph(km/h) as actual rail speeds will be in mph, and I'm guessing that the locos have speedos in mph. Also, I can't get excited about the odd mm in (say) the length of the loco - get a bit of dust on the buffer shafts, compress them a few times and ..... Romfordian (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Any standard for consistency would be to metric, with an exception for other original or specified units. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units_of_measurement is basically this (actually, a little stronger) with the exceptions for US and UK (to a lesser degree). The example given being speed-limits in mph, just as you noted.
Are the additional templates necessary (other than feet'+inches"→metres), could Template:convert be used directly... this would keep things in the source code of the infoboxes aligned and easier to follow when editing. The main reason I did the temporary revert was data integrity—ensuring values didn't get disrupted by Chinese Whispers.
I suspect the break-point for widespread metric use in specifications is going to fall around the mid-1980s about at ~Class 58/Class 60/Class 89. Class 91/92 have rated metric speed limits. Roughly I'd just follow wants in the infobox already as the primary unit, the multiple-of-ten/hundred/thousand is probably going to be primary unit (so a 3,000 bhp engine probably still is that... For the EMD 59/66/67 I would suspect these are metric with imperial-engines, but that's just a hunch. Does that help refine some sort of guiding-line? —Sladen (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
NB. I also reverted British Rail Class 58 for the moment; 44inch wheels sounds suspiciously like 1.1m :-) —Sladen (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
For Long Tons/Tonnes, I'd probably consider doing the conversion x LT (y T), but not the other way, if the original is metric, just x Tonnes... The values are fairly similar and the Loooooony Tonnnnnnnns seems to add lots of noise to me. —Sladen (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)