User talk:Eob
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, Eamonn. Thanks for the addition to Oliver Cromwell. I was looking for a way of adding a similar note myself but wasn't quite sure of the tone to take. You have done it admirably. sjc
I think it's a good idea and I hate to be the one to nit-pick, but wouldn't your area comparison pages be better as <whatever>km^2; this is more accurate. Also, while you're in a conversiony mood, do you know the conversion for hectares -> km^2? -- Dweir
- Is the "^" meaning exponentiation understood outside computer programming? There are 100 hectares in a square km. --Eob
I have a "^" button on my calculator, and I've seen it used elsewhere. I'll go and add redirects to your existing pages for <whatever>km^2 if you like -- Dweir
Actually it turns out that "^" is not a valid character in page titles on this Wiki.
One change I am thinking of is to use scientific notation for the larger sizes (This allows greater range more conveniently, especially useful as I was thinking of extending this idea to other measures such as lengths. For lengths we might want to have sizes all the way from the microscopic to the cosmic scales.) So for example for areas instead of the current:
pages we could have
Or perhaps we should use words rather than numbers:
-
- square kilometers
- tens of square kilometers
- hundreds of square kilometers
- thousands of square kilometers
- tens of thousands of square kilometers
- hundreds of thousands of square kilometers
- millions of square kilometers
- tens of millions of square kilometers
- hundreds of millions of square kilometers
(Actually, the more I look at the last format the more I like it. The titles are more verbose, but they give a better indication of what the page is, and the format is more in keeping with Wikipedia conventions.)
--Eob
- Point taken (oh well). I like the second way as well. -Dweir
I think many people would find scientific notation a bit cryptic. I don't really like the idea of spelling out the words either, especially as this eventually leads to the question of what "billion", "trillion", etc., mean. My suggestion would be to do it like this:
-
- 1 km2
- 10 km2
- 100 km2
- 1,000 km2
- 10,000 km2
- 100,000 km2
- 1,000,000 km2
- 10,000,000 km2
- 100,000,000 km2
--Zundark, 2001 Nov 19
- The commas complicate matters. Also, There aren't many areas larger than 100 million square kilometres, are there? --Dweir
-
- The commas were intended to make it clearer, as it's difficult to count large numbers of zeros without them. The surface area of the Sun is about 6,000,000,000,000 km2. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 19
All though the word version is verbose, in actual links it would be hidden behind a particular area:
-
- The area of the Foo Lake is 6.3 km2
- The state of Bar (24,000 km2
- The river Styx has a drainage area of 2,300,00 km2
--Eob
Was this your idea, Eob? If so, yay, you! I like it a lot (much better than 'Approximately the size of Alabama,' and I actually know how long it takes to drive from Arab to Gulf Shores. --MichaelTinkler
Yes, I think this is a good idea, too. --LMS
Thanks guys. Yes it was my idea <modest blush>. It seemed that with hyperlinking we could do a lot better than the usual 'Approximately the size of Alabama' style so prevalent in geographical descriptions. It should help people get a much better idea of how big places are by showing comparisons with places they know. By the way I am thinking that we could also extend this to other measures, such as length. We could have similar "order of magnitude" comparison pages for different length scales ranging from the sub-microscopic to the cosmic. Most people when reading articles with such numbers tend to skip past the numbers without really absorbing them -- hopefully these comparison pages will help give them a better intuitive sense of the numbers. --Eob
I think the km2 pages is a great idea, and discovered there are already pages for distances, which, however, use a different notation:
1e3 metres for 1 km - 10 km 1e4 metres for 10 km - 100 km 1e5 metres 1e6 metres 1e7 metres 1e8 metres 1e9 metres 1e10 metres 1e11 metres 1e12 metres 1e13 metres 1e14 metres 1e15 metres 1e16 metres 1e17 metres 1e18 metres 1e19 metres 1e20 metres
In one way, these (metres and km2 pages) are a perfect analogy to the pages for years (1876) and dates (November 20). But they are also quite different. It is almost impossible to find a case where it is natural to link directly to 1e4 metres or 1000km2. It will probably always be [ [ 1e4 metres | 37 km ] ]. With that kind of links, it is not necessary to use "page names" that flow naturally in written prose language (as "November 20" does), and I would seriously suggest a more engineering/scientific like notation with exponentials (1e3, etc.) and unit abbreviations (m rather than metres). We could also use negative exponents to describe the sizes of atoms, etc. The system I proprose is:
- (Moved the table that was here to orders of magnitude --Eob)
I also tried to link distances to areas and volumes, as can be seen in 1e6 metres. I'm not sure I've found a notation that feels natural yet. Please comment on this. --LA2, November 20, 2001
- I like the idea of linking pages of the different units. I just reformatted 1e6 metres into a what I think is a cleaner format. What do you think? --Eob, November 20, 2001
-
- Yes, the new format looks nice. I'll use that for new pages from now. Don't now if I have the energy to go back and edit the old ones though.--LA2
Regarding the Western Isles page: it should not be a redirect for the Hebrides for the simple reason that the council known as the "Western Isles" council does not have jurisdiction over the entire Outer Hebrides, let alone the Hebrides itself --Dweir
- Sorry, I believed what had been written in the page. I have just undone the redirect. I will leave it to you to write up this distinction. --Eob
I just restored the previous version of the Sodium article and removed the direct link to 1e-10 m in the Beryllium entry. Previously, a link was provided to the angstrom article in both of these entries like so Å. However the addition of the link to 1e-10 m destroyed this link (The Å article already has a link to 1e-10 m). I do not believe that it is appropriate to link an orders of magnitude comparison articles every time a quantity is given (at least for scientific articles).
It is more appropriate to provide a link in an the article for the actual unit being compared (i.e. km, L, gram etc), and then on the unit's page you can have a whole list of links to comparative orders of magnitude articles (e.g. 1km - 100,000,000,000 km).
Remember the "suprise factor", a novice visitor will be confused upon seeing a link to an exact quantity such as 102 pm and then be taken to the very odd looking [1e-10 m] article (which really should be [1E-10 m] or [1EE-10 m], the lowercase "e" stands for "natural logarithm"). Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of providing size comparisons -- I just think it is better to have them on the various unit articles. --User:maveric149
-
- Just for future reference: most of the above has been ironed out at Orders of magnitude -- Tarquin 11:32 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)
[edit] Evolutionism
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Evolutionism
[edit] Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
[edit] Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006
Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 03:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
