Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RexxS (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 2 August 2012 (→BMJ and Misplaced Pages: Thanks Anthony). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is RexxS's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66Auto-archiving period: 28 days

Please feel free to leave messages, comments, etc. here for me. I'll do my best to reply to you.

Archives

Template:Multicol Archive Wikimedia UK Archive 01: Jan '08 – Jan '09 Archive 02: Jan '09 – Jul '09 Archive 03: Jul '09 – Jan '10 Archive 04: Jan '10 – Mar '10 Archive 05: Mar '10 – Jul '10 Template:Multicol-break Archive 06: Jul '10 – Sep '10 Archive 07: Sep '10 – Nov '10 Archive 08: Nov '10 – Dec '10 Archive 09: Jan '11 – Feb '11 Archive 10: Feb '11 – Mar '11 Archive 11: Mar '11 – Jun '11 Template:Multicol-break Archive 12: Jun '11 – Oct '11 Archive 13: Oct '11 – Nov '11 Archive 14: Nov '11 – Jan '12 Archive 15: Jan '12 – May '12 Archive 16: May '12 – Template:Multicol-end

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

WP:SCUBA Newsletter Issue #1

background radiation

This is an exact quote from the ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664640/?tool=pmcentrez

"The world average dose rate from naturally occurring sources of “background” radiation is 0.24 rad per year = 0.0024 Gy/year, or 2.4 mGy/y (UNSCEAR 2000)."

Please revert your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 01:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. The source used in the article that supports that sentence is this:

• Cuttler JM, Pollycove M (2009). "Nuclear energy and health: and the benefits of low-dose radiation hormesis". Dose Response. 7 (1): 52–89. doi:10.2203/dose-response.08-024.Cuttler. PMC 2664640. PMID 19343116.

The exact quote is "This article presents surprising scientific evidence about health effects of radiation, both low dose (acute exposure received in a time period ranging from an instant to about a day) and low dose rate (dose per unit time, e.g., per hour or year, for a chronic exposure received over many days, weeks, years or a lifetime). For example, the average global natural radiation dose rate is 2.4 mSv per year."

It appears that the same source first presents the figures in mSv per year, and further on expands on that quoting a figure in rads, with its equivalent in mGy. That's quite useful to establish the approximate correspondence between mSv and mGy. Nevertheless, as the source quite clearly gives mSv first and then mGy later, don't you think that my formulation ("... the world average dose rate ... is 2.4 mSv per year, approximately equivalent to 2.4 mGy per year.") is better than yours? --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The source say: "These units are related; 1 Gy = 100 rad and 1 joule = 10 million ergs. The world average dose rate from naturally occurring sources of “background” radiation is 0.24 rad per year = 0.0024 Gy/year, or 2.4 mGy/y (UNSCEAR 2000)."

A Gy is not 'approximately equivalent' to 100 rad it is exactly 100 rad. That is why there is an equal sign in 1 Gy = 100 rad. It is not an approximation.

The source say that the background radiation is 2.4 mGy/y.

Thus the 'approximately equivalent' should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The source says first "the average global natural radiation dose rate is 2.4 mSv per year." Surely you can read that?

It seems you're confusing rads with sieverts. Our article does not mention rads and I have never stated that a gray is 'approximately equivalent' to 100 rad. Please read and understand Strawman: you need to apologise for attacking me over things that I did not say. We all know that 100 rad = 1 Gy from the definitions, since 1 rad = 100 erg per gram (old CGI units) and 1 gray (Gy) = 1 joule per kilogram (SI unit), so those are indeed exactly related and measure the same thing. But the sievert (Sv) is the SI measure of effective dose and is not the same as Gy. Here's what our article says about it:

• "The gray is used with quantities of absorbed dose in any material, while the sievert is used with equivalent, effective, and committed dose in biological tissue. The latter quantities are weighted averages of absorbed dose designed to be more representative of the stochastic health effects of radiation, and use of the sievert implies that appropriate regulatory weighting factors have been applied to the original measurement."The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection". Annals of the ICRP. ICRP publication 103. 37 (2–4). 2007. ISBN 978-0-7020-3048-2. Retrieved 17 May 2012."

An average across the world will represent many different sorts of radiation and every different body type. Now do you see why 1 Sv will only be approximately equal to 1 Gy in these cases? I expect your apology to follow. --RexxS (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I indeed read that "the average global natural radiation dose rate is 2.4 mSv per year.", and I agree with it and do not have any objection to that.

I also read that "The world average dose rate from naturally occurring sources of “background” radiation is 0.24 rad per year = 0.0024 Gy/year, or 2.4 mGy/y (UNSCEAR 2000).", and your statement at the article "background radiation is 2.4 mSv per year, approximately equivalent to 2.4 mGy per year", where the source does not say approximately equivalent but is.

I did not understand where did you come up with approximately equivalent, and from your response "quoting a figure in rads, with its equivalent in mGy", I thought that the idea of yours that was the source for the "approximately equivalent" was that.

From your last reply, I understand that you have read some other source, and from your impression of it decided that the first source is wrong, or not entirely correct, and decided to fix it with that approximately equivalent. Is that right?

You wrote "An average across the world will represent many different sorts of radiation and every different body type". I am not sure what I am suppose to understand from that. So, I ask, would you say that the average of 3 and 5 is approximately equivalent to 4, or that the average of 3 and 5 is 4? Can you see why the word average does not justify adding approximately equivalent? As for the body types and radiation type - the source has taken them into account. If you like I can explain it to you further if you can handle math. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 11:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Where's the apology? Did I say " a gray is 'approximately equivalent' to 100 rad" or didn't I?

If you don't understand that different types of radiation produce different biological effects and different parts of the body are affected in different ways, then you won't be able to understand why a sievert is not the same as a gray (unit). Feel free to explain the math further. It's 40 years since I received my degree in maths, but I'm pretty sure that even on your planet your math is not too different from the maths that the rest of us use. You'll find that to determine an average you need a sum (the numerator) and a count (the denominator). Please tell me what those numbers were that gave the figure of 2.4 mSv for the average global natural radiation dose rate - and when you realise that both the numerator and denominator are approximations or estimates, then perhaps you'll see why we can't state with any certainty the equivalence between the sievert and the gray in this case. Both of those are SI units - have you never stopped to wonder why SI has two different units if they are not measuring two different things? This is what our article on sievert actually says:

• "The sievert (symbol: Sv) is the International System of Units (SI) derived unit of equivalent radiation dose, effective dose, and committed dose. Quantities that are measured in sieverts are designed to represent the stochastic biological effects of ionizing radiation. The sievert should not be used to express the unmodified absorbed dose of radiation energy, which is a clear physical quantity measured in grays. To enable consideration of biological effects, further calculations must be performed to convert absorbed dose into effective dose, the details of which depend on the biological context. This can be far more complicated than just multiplying by a weighting factor."

If there is anything in the above that is puzzling you, please ask as I or someone with a stronger medical background will be sure to be able to explain it to you. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

As an outsider, I fail to see what you two are arguing about. You both know (and everybody knows) that sieverts are not grays. Nevertheless, they are approximately equal for the types of radiations that comprise the normal ionizing radiation background. Thus, this background has been given in the literature in both mSv and mGy, and the numbers are the same, to two sig digits. We know they can't ever be EXACTLY the same, not for any given person, not for any given average, NEVER. But they are close enough for all practical purposes, for THIS purpose. They may differ in some circumstances (nuclear contamination from some reactor) but that's not "normal background" by definition.

So what do we say about this? Some sources say ~2.6 mSv and others ~2.6 mGy and both are correct? But a mSv is not precisely a mGy? Here is not the place to describe all ins and outs of weighting factors. Rather, simply say that in this circumstance, one is approximately the same as the other, and the same figure can be used for both. Which (so far as I can tell) was done. If some reference SEEMED to be implying that one is EXACTLY the other, then the reference is clearly wrong. But what are we going to do about that, shoot ourselves? It happens. It's not worth the time you're spending obscessing on it. Find a compromise statement that doesn't go into all this, and stick it in the article. If you don't like some reference, don't use it! SBHarris 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Steve. The article currently states:

• For purposes of comparison, the world average dose rate from naturally occurring sources of background radiation is 2.4 mSv per year, approximately equivalent to 2.4 mGy per year.

How about if I just take out the word "approximately", on the basis that the audience is aware of the approximation anyway? --RexxS (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Or put in "equal to for practical purposes in this application" or something like that, as a marker so it doesn't sound like anything thinks they are EXACTLY equal. SBHarris 20:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Would support either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)(please leave replies on my talk page) 22:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

RexxS, Since you don't mind the math,

Sv=(C₁*mGy₁+C₂*mGy₂+C₃*mGy₃+...+C_k*mGy_k), I denotated mGy_j as the radiation in mGy to body part j, and C_j the coefficient of body part j.

If the radiation is uniform, which it is for background radiation, then

mGy=mGy₁=mGy₂=mGy₃=...=mGy_k

Thus Sv=(C₁*mGy+C₂*mGy+C₃*mGy+...+C_k*mGy)

Thus Sv=(C₁+C₂+C₃+...+C_k)*mGy

Since (C₁+C₂+C₃+...+C_k)=1, a fact that you can verify in many sources,

Sv=1*mGy

Thus Sv=mGy

If you don't think that the source say that the background radiation is 2.4mSv, you should write your approximately before the 2.4mSv, but not after it, this is like saying it is exactly 2.4mSv, but it is not exactly 2.4mGy. By the way, shouldn't we all stick with the source instead of inserting our own interpretations to it? Isn't that the reason that quality sources are required? So that we won't have to trust each other expertize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought we could have laid this to rest by now, even without your apology. You do realise that if you postulate that mGy_j = mGy_k for all j, k then you're saying that the energy absorbed per unit mass is the same for each body part? In other words, for uniform radiation (same energy per unit volume), each body part has to have the same density (mass per unit volume)? Surely you can see that's not true? If bone and fat were assumed to have approximately the same density, then your analysis would be approximately correct. Do you see yet why we are never able to assert an exact correspondence between absorbed dose rate and effective dose rate, and why I was pointing out that different body types have different correspondences? --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Maybe there is something missing there, which is something like mGy_k=AbsorptionCoefficient_k*BackgroundRadiationEnergy. Maybe the average AbsorptionCoefficient_k of the body parts is the same. I don't know. I will look it up. But I think that by average they also meant the average of radiation absorbed by a person over the whole earth population (where the energy of the radiation and the body type can vary). Nenpog (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I've had a good look through that thread and others have already made the points I would have made. Your consideration and helpfulness is much appreciated. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some coding improvements in MediaWiki

Hi, I hope you're doing well. As for me, starting september 2012 I should study occupational therapy if all goes well. I'm all fired up! :-)

Now to the point. I need as much advice as I can, on a field you're more experienced than me. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Changes_in_thumbnail_alt_text. Thank god some developers are dedicating their time to accessibility. Before writing something at bugzilla, I want to be sure we agree on what should be done. And I want to understand what's being changed, because I currently feel very confused by PHP and MediaWiki coding.

In short: RexxS superhero please rescue me! I'm a young maiden living in a castle nerd boy living in a far far away land. Dodoïste (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Salut, Dodoïste! Good news on your studies, and congratulations! I've been elected as a trustee of the Board of Wikimedia UK, so things are busy as I'm trying to set up an Education Subcommittee while getting ready for Wikimania next week – but being busy is good.

I've commented at WikiProject Accessibility and I hope it makes sense to you, and I've made the same point at Bugzilla. In brief, I'm happy with all of the changes but just as cautious about sticking image filenames into alt text as you are. It won't hurt to have several of us commenting.

J'éspère que tout va bien avec toi, --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds exciting to be a trustee of the Board of Wikimedia UK. By the way, have you seen the Wikimania accessibility presentation? I've just learned about it myself. It seems to be made by three accessibility experts from Switzerland. Following an audit requested by Wikimedia Germany. Maybe some things will start to move forward. Dodoïste (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link - I've just signed up for the presentation, and I'm hoping it will help raise wider awareness of the issues here. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Leno FLC

Hi RexxS, If you have time, could you pop over to here as there is a "sortable" table related comment from The Rambling Man. He/she is saying that the table doesn't "sort back to its original form". I haven't got a clue about this and it's the last remaining points. If you could either give instructions here or my TP that would be fantastic! Many thanks as always! -- Cassianto 15:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done a demo of a quick fix for you and commented at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/Songs and sketches of Dan Leno/archive1. Do the checks and I'll come back to you with any solutions you need. Expect the FLC to last a few weeks while other reviewers get round to looking at it, so there's no rush. The Rambling Man is exceptionally helpful, so don't be afraid of asking him for help with things that you're not sure about. Obviously, you can also ping me for any assistance I can give. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's wonderful thank you. I'm used to FAC so i'm certainly not underestimating it's future challenges. I will set to it right away! -- Cassianto 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Now done! :-) -- Cassianto 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, could you advice me on one more sorting issue. We have recieved this comment at FLC: Sorting by Title: should The Bandit, The Detective and The Jap be sorted by B, D and J respectively, instead of T? If you have time, could you fix one so I can see how it is done and then I can do the rest. I am really not understanding the written instructions on how to do this. Only if your not to busy of course. Many thanks! -- Cassianto 20:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Cassianto, I've done "A Nobleman in Disguise", "The Fish Shop", and "The Muffin Man". Have a look and see if you can do the others. If not, let me know! --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your assistance, RexxS! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Your proving invaluable! I have now completed the lot. If you get a moment could you give it a quick check? -- Cassianto 19:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, I dont know if you get involved with Supporting or Opposing, but i am just tidying up the FLC of Songs and sketches of Dan Leno. Could I trouble you to just pop back and show your allegiance (which ever way that will be). Hope your well! -- Cassianto 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a cool gesture and means a lot coming from you

You are a prince. Always thought that.

Not so crazy about how this website or how it distracts me from work and health and social life.

But you are a good guy.

TCO (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, welcome back! I'm still looking forward to working with you on more articles.

No rush; take your time; do it when you know you can enjoy it. --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fancy doing some clean up?

Dive Sites of Timor-Leste needs some drastic work and may be right up your street (down your dive?) - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've taken the liberty of name-dropping at Talk:Dive Sites of Timor-Leste#Citations Needed. Of course, one should not usually name-drop, as Her Majesty The Queen said to me only last week. - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yikes - there's quite a bit of work there. I'm at Wikimania in DC right now and not blessed with much spare time, but I'll put it on my list of jobs for next week when I'm back home. Cheers pal! --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I will take a look and see if I can help. Peter (Southwood) : 07:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, and I agree with your assessment on the talk page. There's an RfC at meta:Requests for comment/Travel Guide which seems to have massive support for that project. I'd recommend leaving Dive Sites of Timor-Leste as it is for a short while in the clear expectation that it will be moved to Wiki-Travel Guide as soon as it is established. The only other alternative would be to take it to AfD with a recommendation that it be userified until it can be trans-wikied - but that feels like process for its own sake, as I'm sure we all understand what is really needed. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

new 'fast' citation templates

Hi. I see you commented on Jimmy's page about this (ya, earlier)

• User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 110#Username penalty: IP users see articles 5x-50x faster

It's now at ANI:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates

Sigh, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been shifted to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Wikid77 and new 'fast' citation templates. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Misplaced Pages editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Misplaced Pages editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Meetup in Liverpool

Hey RexxS. There's been some discussions on my talk page about The next Liverpool meetup. I've mentioned your name there, and thought it best that I drop you a line! Worm(talk) 09:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Worm - I'll see you there on Saturday. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The conglomerate bothering you again

Rex fix please? Bishonen | talk 13:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC).

Thanks! (But surely I shouldn't have to first subst, then save, then put in the parameter? Naughty template!) Bishonen | talk 20:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC).

It is a naughty template. For simple text it does the job without substituting, but sadly our mediawiki software sometimes has difficulty in working out where one template ends and another begins. The easiest solution is just to substitute it and then hack it into the shape you want. If everything was easy, it wouldn't be such an interesting hobby, would it? --T-RexxS (Rawr) 21:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility conference goodness?

Hi ReexS! I hope you had a great time at Wikimania. :-) I would like to know what your thoughts are about the accessibility conference. Maybe other will be interested to know, so could you leave a comment at the accessibility project? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have some time, I'd be interested. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Decompression (diving) nomination for A-class

Hi RexxS, I think Decompression (diving) is up to A-class, Please take a look when you have the time and comment on article talk page. Peter (Southwood) : 06:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Ralph. Jack had a look and pushed things along. Got an ISBN for this ;) The refs could use some work, still. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dan Leno FLC

Hi. I believe that we have addressed all your concerns. Can you now support promotion of the list, or did you have any other comments? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the far future FLC

Hi RexxS, it's been, what, nearly two weeks since I asked for your help! So, if you'd be so kind as you usually are, would you have a butcher's at the above list for accessibility. My initial instinct was to go loopy over the symbols being used in the key (and no compliance to MOS:DTT...) but before I comment I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look. Hope you're well, all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It was actually not bad at all. Those tables really don't fit with row headers, so DTT isn't much help. I see that Serendipodous has already done the alt text work that I suggested, so there's not much left. --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc James

Hi Rexx, thanks for the contact details - I am in touch with James about some Misplaced Pages editing. Best Daria Cybulska (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

TfD for Fcite templates quick Citation_Style_1

Per WP:CANVAS, after contacting neutral to mostly negative editors, I am also contacting you about "Template:Fcite_web for discussion" which is the quick, 5x-times-faster version of {Cite_web}. Inspired by quick Vcite, I created Fcite to match Help:Citation_Style_1, as lightning-fast templates, but with some missing parameters, and there has been much debate if quick templates which do not have all "99 parameters" would be too confusing, and so should be deleted. See:

• WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_15#Template:Fcite (begun 15 July)

There is the possibility of adding more parameters, as a long-term solution. Again, I am contacting you as a potential supporter, per wp:CANVAS, after having recently contacted neutral (Jimbo) or negative editors (several). This is just an FYI, and feel free to ignore the TfD, or to advise Delete/Keep, or to remove this message. There are numerous mixed opinions, so whatever you decide is fine with me. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Sellers

Hi RexxS, I've been recommended to you by Cassianto‎, about a table matter: I hope you don't mind the intrusion! I wonder if I could ask you to look over the technical (and access) side of the tables in Peter Sellers on stage, screen and record when you have a moment? There really is no rush on this as much of the information still has to be sourced properly and the lead re-worked before we think of anything else, but the eventual aim would be to think about an FLC, once we have sorted out a GAC on the main Peter Sellers article itself. Many thanks if could could spare the time: it would be hugely appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I know I still have to add {{sort|xx}} tags to most of the areas, but if I follow the same structure and coding as I have in the "Selected radio broadcasts" table, would this be seen as viable for later FLC listing? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, SC! Of course I don't mind :) - sorry it's taken me a little while to catch up as I'm just back from Wikimania. I've made some very minor tweaks to the first table for you to have a look at, and on the talk page I've suggested you might consider using Title instead of Year as the row header. See what you think. You should look at the other tables for similar issues, but honestly there's little that I'd recommend changing. Your referencing is good, although you might want to use WP:LDR to get the full references out of the tables - you can always ask Jack to do a reference check before FLC. I'll keep an eye on the list, and chip in if I spot anything that I haven't noticed so far. Please ping me for a review when you take it to FLC. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, Thanks very much for doing this: it really is very much appreciated. I've not used LDR before, and only came across it for the first time yesterday, but I like the thoughts behind it, especially in a table. I'll work that in when I start the overhaul. I've left one question on your comments - just asking for an opinion, nothing too time-taxing! Thanks again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, Thanks so much for all your help on the Peter Sellers on stage, screen and record article. I'm going to sit on the article for a day or so and then fire it off to a Peer Review, with an FL being the ultimate aim. Your work and advice has hugely increased the chances of getting there: many, many thanks. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Email

Hey RexxS, I think I replied to your email but my phone doesn't work too well in the depths of Kernow, blame O2 yet again. Let me know if you did/didn't! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TRM. I did receive your email and I'm hugely grateful for offering to help out as an uninvolved, trusted person. It might not come to it, but anyway I owe you one. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, you owe me nothing at all, just glad that the wonders of data roaming have extended to St Austell...! The Rambling Man (talk)

Second opinion

Hi RexxS, I have reverted some edits at Scuba Diving International and I would like your opinion whether my response was appropriate. Thanks, Peter (Southwood) : 07:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Peter, you are spot-on, thank you. I've added a note to his talk page encouraging him to look for better sources, as that is the best solution for those issues. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Train the trainer

Hi RexxS,

On hearing of the next Manchester meetup, I recall that you said something about the possibility of me being trained to be a trainer. Is that still looking possible? I think I had consumed a number of beverages at the point where you suggested it so excuse me if I've remembered it all wrong.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The details of the next Training for Trainers are at wmuk:Training the Trainers/October event. Sign up if you can make it! Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I have signed up. Yaris678 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Glossary of SCUBA diving into Glossary of underwater diving terminology (and redirect) as it is a subset of the appropriate contents for this article. Merging would reduce duplication, reduce maintenance and improve usefulness. Glossary of SCUBA diving is also non-compliant with WP:MOSGLOSS and WP:SCUBA naming conventions (should be Glossary of scuba diving terms, which should also be a redirect). Discussion on Talk:Glossary of underwater diving terminology. Peter (Southwood) : 10:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added my support (and thanks). I should just remind you that fresh redirects of the sort you suggest ought to be plausible search terms. In other words, if someone is likely to search for Glossary of scuba diving terms, then it makes sense to create the redirect. Although long-ish titles are rarely searched for, in this case I think someone familiar with MOSGLOSS might search for that, so it does make sense as a redirect. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That was my reasoning. Would you consider Scuba diving terms to also be an appropriate redirect for reasons explained above? Peter (Southwood) : 07:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

While I am on the subject, do you have any opinions/advice on glossary formatting re bulleted list vs WP:MOSGLOSS#Template-structured? Peter (Southwood) : 08:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Scuba diving terms is a very plausible search term, so a redirect makes sense to me.

The templates {{gloss}}/{{glossend}}, {{term}}, and {{defn}} create a definition list, which is exactly the structure we should be using for glossaries, so I'd be very much in favour of making use of them. You can make the same effect using the "; term : definition " wiki-syntax, but the templates are more intuitive for other editors to use when adding to the list. I'll admit I'm not enamoured of the numbering where there are multiple definitions, but that's not a significant objection. If you feel happy using those templates, I'd certainly encourage you to use them.

P.S. section name anchors are case-sensitive in links, so #template-structured is not the same as #Template-structured - who thought that one up?! --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK I will give it a try, While the can is open and the worms are going wild. (Have you any idea how many terms there are for this glossary? I haven't, and I have been working on it pretty continuously for a couple of days now. There are always more.)

I noticed the case sensitivity bit. I will probably get it wrong a few times anyway and be totally confused when it doesn't work. Shit happens, only the depth varies. If I am not back in a week send out a search party. With shovels. Maybe one of those nice white jackets with straps at the end of the sleeves... • • • Peter (Southwood) : 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Done and dusted. Now just the merge to do. I think I will jump the gun a bit and do it tomorrow if no-one has objected by then. Otherwise I will probably have added everything on the scuba glossary and have nothing to merge by the time a week is up. I keep thinking of more terms though, there's no end to the buggers.

Thanks for the help, it went more easily than I expected. • • • Peter (Southwood) : 21:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Portrait

Hehe. Much appreciated. Both handsome and appetising! (I'm afraid I speak haltingly — I don't seem to have acquired a personality yet. Perhaps it will come. Images always help!) Bish and chips (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

Genre scene

Hehe, he forgot to protect the ankles! But how 'bout animating the darwinbish? To show her appearing from the lattice-work of spears and moving in for the kill, jaws chomping? darwinbish 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

The "jaws chomping" bit may not be realistically possible. darwin 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

BMJ and Misplaced Pages

I noticed this comment on James' page, so thought I'd point you to this discussion at WT:MED. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony, I haven't quite caught up with my watchlist yet and hadn't spotted that conversation at WT:MED. I'm glad that multiple eyes are on the issue and hopefully we'll get a good reply to the letter - particularly the question they raise about whether as a professional group they "wish to engage with Misplaced Pages more constructively". Personally, I think we should be asking the question whether as a professional group they are capable of engaging with Misplaced Pages more constructively if they cannot grasp the necessity of secondary sourcing in an environment of anonymous editing. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)