User talk:Erzengel
|
|
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149
New Imperialism
- Article length (15 April)
- I’m sorry that the entry on New Imperialism was a bit lengthy, but this was a very complex era of history and very much a global phenomenon that cannot be explained by easy answers. The language is already dense and succinct as well. A shorter version would be left laden with reductionisms, sweeping generalizations, and over-simplifications (a twice-banned user tried that, and the results were horrendous). Or it would just be a basic chronology of myriad disparate events, trends, and developments that would not seem, to any lay reader, interconnected with each other or even related to the subject matter of New Imperialism. Or it would just give an overview of what happened without illuminating why it happened or giving readers prerequisite background and context needed to be able to judge for themselves why this epoch of history unfolded the way it did. While I’m sure that there’s room for improvement, a brief offhand criticism on the basis of length will do little to enhance the readability of the article.
- That would be far too drastic. As it is, each section of the article builds on the previous section. If you spit the article up you’d end up having much more content. Some development explained at the beginning of the page would have to be re-explained in a new article not containing that content. For instance, references the "breakdown of the concert for Europe" or the "breakdown of Pax Britannica" would have to be explained over and over again in many separate articles that would make references to these developments. I’m sympathetic to your cause, but it would be a far better idea to focus on readability rather than length.
- Sadly, the article would probably be more readable if it were longer, which would mean that the prose wouldn’t have to be so dense.
Beat to me updating the FA Cup by 2 minutes Mintguy 16:11 17 May 2003 (UTC)
- Beat me by less (mumble-grumble-edit conflict)! -- sannse 16:14 17 May 2003 (UTC)
Hi! Your NASA logo is now on NASA. I only had to downsize it to 250 pixels wide, put some code around the filename (which is now nasa.logo.250pix.png) and push my Florida pic down the page a bit to get it out of the way. Hope you like it!
Adrian Pingstone 18:15 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining your deletions at planetesimal? Pizza Puzzle
It is not editing that annoys me, but rather the lack of communication which often accompanies editing.
- Planetesimals are relatively large asteroids (with diameters of ~10km);
- Asteroids are a type of planetesimal, which still orbits around the sun.
- I have texts which state that planetesimals are asteroids, you apparently have texts which state that asteroids are planetesimals. I strongly suspect that its better to refer to planetesimals as large asteroids since it doesnt seem too correct to refer to a small space rock (your typical asteroid) as a "tiny planetesimal". If you can provide a source for your view, we could rewrite the article to state that X states this, but Y states that.
- It would seem that you are implying that there is a type of planetesimal which is not an asteroid, clarification on that would be useful. In any case, the author I have been reading was quite clear that he considered space rocks to be asteroids which eventually "grew" into planetesimals and then protoplanets and then planets.
It is estimated that a typical early solar nebula may have billions of such objects.
- I can provide a source for this and will do so.
- Changed Terran to Sol simply because I've never heard of Terran being used to describe our solar system. Sol makes more sense anyway since our planetary system revolves around the sun, not earth.
- I agree. I think the text had originaly said "Earth System" which I didn't like. Sol System is much better. The reason I didnt use it, I think, was that I at first tried Sol Solar System which was too corny, in some of my edits somewhere I know I had started using Sol System.
I strongly agree with your comments regarding New Imperialism and beg you to overhaul that page. Pizza Puzzle