User talk:Andy Dingley

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridge rail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hi Andy

You may remember some years ago (2015?) we had a conversation about the correct title for Rolls-Royce C type diesels - "Range" or "Series". I did mange to find a photo on the www of an RR engine makes plate. This shows that they are "C Range". You can find the photo on the following page: https://www.trms.org.au/rm_engine_frame.htm

Regards Bruce

A tag has been placed on Internally riffled boiler tubes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Hello Andy Dingley,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hello Andy Dingley,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Andy Dingley,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Maersk Hangzhou has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Hey, Andy Dingley. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy, I've been doing some editing around Ian Rankin's books, including the Mortal Causes page, and I'm trying to add enough citations to take down the single-source template there. But some of your more anecdotal additions (the joke, etc), though really interesting, seem unverifiable. Do you happen to have links to where you found this info? I know Rankin has done various radio interviews, etc. but so far I'm struggling to find anything. Any help on this would be very much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Nope, that's classic OR, which is why I tagged it as needing citations. I didn't write any of the squid joke stuff. I think you'd have to find someone who knows more Rankin than I do (I'm not a fan) and follows his own blogging / talks at signings etc. The text change is trivial, but follows what I can best source as the most common phrasing of the joke. (Google text matching counts are seen as gold-standard evidence on WP, just ask DickLyon!)

The revolver stuff I would see as "sky is blue" territory. The model identification is in the book, and the rest is self-evident to those skilled in the arts, and covered by the source I added. This is one of the reasons I don't rate the Rebus novels highly: Rankin writes a very good Edinburgh, but Rebus seems like a careless copper and not at all a credible soldier. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy! You recently made some noteworthy edits on Tendai M. Shaba, some changes have been made! You may kindly review it. Regards Paxromana69 (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Thanks for doing this, it's good to get some biography articles here that aren't just white western men. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: And thank for your suggestions. Edits have been made, you may now review Tendai M. Shaba :-) Paxromana69 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy! I'm a student writing a paper on the Battersea power station and saw you own the book Our generation by E Royston Pike, is there a way you could scan the foreward and send it to me? It would be much appreciated! 128.179.138.178 (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know where my copy of it is at present. Some scans are at Commons:Category:Scans from 'Our Generation', 1938, but that's all I have. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Timing belt (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unneeded 2 link dab

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on Wikipedia:NOPRIMARY applying here - I updated the page to reflect that Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No source is needed for something that can be immediately experienced. Did you test it? I'd bet 10 to 1 you didn't. The functioning, if you test it, together with the various parts of the incoming stream is that of a NACA duct, vortexes and all. It's important for those needing A/C in their cars who don't have it. A NACA duct doesn't have to be symmetrical to operate. Look at the one on the rear hip of the F-40. OveGjerlow (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, that's irrelevant. This is an article about NACA ducts, and the specific mode of operation that they have. It's not an article on how to get fresh air into your car. A NACA duct operates in a specific manner, that of entraining the low-energy stagnant surface layer and encouraging that to enter a vent, down the shallow ramp. If it doesn't work that way, it's not a NACA duct. 'Opening the window' in a car is not the same thing at all.

Secondly, see WP:RS. This does not fall under WP:BLUESKY, it would be WP:OR at best. But mainly, it's still irrelevant.

Thirdly, what's your connection to Tertius51 (talk · contribs)? You seem oddly keen to get their exact text and their image included in this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A NACA outer shape duct, without ramp, with narrow front leading into a wide rear:

1. Generates streamwise vortices at the narrow sidewalls, especially if the edges are sharp or slightly angled.

2. These vortices entrain slower-moving boundary layer air, pulling in higher-energy flow from outside the boundary.

3. The resulting flow reduces flow separation and increases air ingestion efficiency for the widened aft section.

This is similar in concept to the swept sidewalls and ramp-induced vortices in a traditional NACA duct, but, necessarily, less efficient.

Try it and get back to me about Bluesky. OveGjerlow (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice WP:OR there. Get back to us when you have WP:RS. That's how we work here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still haven't tried it, have you? LOL. OK, look at the effect on overall flow, aft of a small boundary layer diverting slot (Fig. 10.). https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/11/1/42 There are many papers out there like this, but try it in your or a friend's car and get back to me about Bluesky. OveGjerlow (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "a submerged inlet, which uses a long inclined plate"

inclined. Not a static port. A NACA duct, not an open window. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are references that support the utility of using a leading-edge slot or boundary layer bleed in lieu of a traditional ramp to improve the efficiency of downstream intakes:

• Berrier, Bobby L., and Richard W. Jeske. Effects of Boundary Layer Bleed on the Flow Characteristics of a Supersonic Mixed-Compression Inlet. NASA Technical Memorandum 87621, 1986.

(NASA study demonstrating that boundary layer bleed ahead of the primary intake significantly improves pressure recovery and reduces distortion at the inlet face in supersonic applications.)

• Gruber, Mark R., et al. Advanced Concepts for Boundary Layer Ingestion in Inlets. NASA/CR—2003-212670, 2003.

(Discusses passive and active boundary layer control techniques, including bleed slots, and their use to mitigate adverse inlet effects without ramps.)

• Papamoschou, Dimitri. “Aero-Propulsive Benefits of Boundary Layer Ingestion.” Journal of Propulsion and Power, vol. 28, no. 5, 2012, pp. 865–874.

(Examines boundary layer ingestion techniques, including leading bleed slots, to optimize intake performance by selectively diverting low-momentum air.)

• Kuethe, Arnold M., and Chuen-Yen Chow. Foundations of Aerodynamics: Bases of Aerodynamic Design. 5th ed., Wiley, 1998.

(Contains principles of boundary layer behavior and inlet design, including descriptions of how diverter slots and ramps affect inlet efficiency.)

• Seiner, John M., and Bo J. Andersson. Advancements in Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI) Design. AIAA 2001-3910, 2001.

(Shows how diverterless intakes can be optimized using shaping and passive bleed features without a ramp, relying on surface flow manipulation to control boundary layer ingestion.)

Still haven't tried it, have you? (So easy to see.) OveGjerlow (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Which of those discusses how car windows are NACA ducts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing the point: The mere shape of a NACA duct, ignoring ramp, suffices to inlet air smoothly. The leading edge incorporates a boundary layer bleed slot, and that's what matters. If the air is to be directed on some path through the vehicle, then a ramp is needed to keep it contained and into a tube for that purpose. If merely to let in air smoothly, without buffeting, that needs only a slot of sufficient size, preceded by a boundary layer bleed slot. OveGjerlow (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Which of those sources discusses how car windows are NACA ducts? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]