User talk:Wolfkeeper/Archive Jan 2008

Hello!

PolarWolf ( sign ) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

just because I felt like it ^_^

No prob ^_^ --PolarWolf ( grrr... ) 02:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Spaceflight - Gagarin's last seven miles

I want to first thank you for taking up the challenge laid down by User:Ageekgal in the revision comment at Spaceflight, of providing a citation for the claim that since Gagarin didn't remain in his spacecraft, his flight should not have qualified according to the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale criteria. This is an astonishing factoid -- and highly illuminating about the nature of the space competition taking place at that point in history. But here's my concern: does coverage of this really belong in the Spaceflight article? Isn't the Human spaceflight article the right place for this level of detail? After all, "everybody" (except the FAI ;-) knows Gagarin was first to orbit the Earth! And to my knowledge, the FAI hasn't officially changed this "record".... And -- the clincher for me -- who did what first really isn't all that important to the overall topic! (sdsds - talk) 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem.WolfKeeper 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Rocket

Hi Wolfkeeper, I noticed your question on Alison's page, and thought I'd fill you in. The issue was twofold: First, the editor who added those items to the page added the same things indiscriminately to multiple articles across the project, as a single purpose account. In the vast majority of these articles, the references or links were irrelevant to the passage cited, and not related directly to the article's context or content. Second (and perhaps more importantly) the site the link goes to is not a reliable source, which brings up the issue of security: These spam links added were done to pages that require users to download video files, and I'm sure you can understand why those aren't a good idea on Wikipedia, per the external links guideline. Readers should not be directed to sites that require external applications to view or verify the reference or item, and the issue of video copyrights also comes into play here. Finally, if you have checked that URL, the site is basically promotional, and the book is not one that is of high quality. There are a great many books out there about the History of Spacecraft, and as far as we could find, that book isn't used as a reference for other books. Now, this is not to say that this one book cannot be used as a "Further reading" source for specific articles that the subject relates to, but unless you own a copy, and can specify pages that are relevant to passages in the article as a footnote, it should not really be used as an inline citation. The purpose of the spamming of the book was self-promotion, and thus, these are the reasons the references were removed. (For instance, the exact same spam refs and links were included in the Nature article). Completely not relevant. Those of us who dealt with this issue agree that in some articles, the book would probably be useful as a further reading citation, but I hope this helps you understand why these were removed. If you'd like to see the damage caused, feel free to look at the contributions of the SPA, and you can see the full issue's discussion with the admins involved (Alison and Flyguy) here. I hope this helps explain the issue! Cheers, ^Ariel♥Gold 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer-to-peer

The problem is that the guidelines say we should use the principle of least surprise. Most people searching for 'peer-to-peer' would expect to find an article on file sharing, and won't understand the peer-to-peer networking article very well.

Now, I know, and you know that 'peer to peer' is a computer network technology, but that's not what people searching are expecting; we're supposed to do what they need, and that means that peer-to-peer needs to redirect to file sharing.

The two articles are incredibly interlinked anyway, so in every other respect it matters little; but the discussions on copyright and so forth need to be in file sharing not, peer-to-peer.

I'm not entirely happy with it, but that's the way it's got to go.WolfKeeper 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I disagree with your assertion that "most people searching for 'peer-to-peer' would expect to find an article on file sharing." That isn't what "peer-to-peer" means. It's likely that most people familiar with the term associate it with file sharing, but that doesn't mean that they regard the two concepts as one and the same.

2. The technology documented in the article is what is used for file sharing. It isn't as though we're sending people to an article about some other definition of the term "peer-to-peer." We're presenting an article that provides useful information about the relevant technology.

3. The file sharing article is linked at the top of the page. If that's what the reader seeks, it's one click away.

4. The title Peer-to-peer (computing) doesn't make sense, as it implies that the parenthetical term serves as disambiguation from one or more non-computing-related definitions of the term "peer-top-peer." This is misleading and unhelpful. —David Levy 12:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

response

FYI, I've responded to you on my talk page. Pdbailey 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Aerodynamics

Hi Wolf. EMBaero is having a go at cleaning up some pages in the aerodynamics sections, so not would probably be a good time to lob in, if you're so inclined. Amongst other affected: Oblique shock, Moving shock, Shock wave, Shock dynamics, Rayleigh_flow, Fanno flow and Prandtl-Meyer_expansion_fan. Regards AKAF 15:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)