Talk:Glossary of boiler terms

Excuse me for my reckless tagging.

I'm not a professional tagger, to start, so if my tag choice is inappropriate please feel free to change it.

Secondly, the page feels cluttered, that's my reason for tagging. The idea was that the glossary should be chunked rather than having a section for each letter, especially because certain letters have only one or two members. I'd be glad to do that myself, I was just in a reckless and naively bold mood. Kerdek! (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The choice of tag was not a problem, but just dropping a bare 'cleanup' tag without explaining your motives is not helpful.

With regard to the list layout... This format is in use successfully with a set of railway terminology pages. There they have more entries/text per letter. I was anticipating that this list would expand considerably, and hence the format would suit, but unfortunately the editor has currently retired from WP. Nevertheless I have left a note on his talk page in case he should drop by with an opinion...

EdJogg (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I chunk it now since he's gone? I would gladly expand it but I'm not much of a boiler fanatic. My thought train (which is, coincidentally, a steam locomotive) is targeting WP:OWN at this point. Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 15:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "chunk" ?

Whacking sections because they have only one member, or changing the layout in the assumption that it's only ever going to be a short list, would seem like a bad idea because this is a very young article on a broad topic and it could expand significantly. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean 'group' the letter categories. As in having an 'A-E' section as opposed to one section per letter of the alphabet, followed by 'F-J', etc. It just really feels cluttered, which makes reading it into a frustrating task. Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you feel like then. I'm just trying to add all the terms I can think of (Ed?) to get a reasonably complete list before you start. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Greetings, Andy!)

Kerdek, I would suggest that lumping the definitions into groups is not a good way forward. Moving to a non- table-based display format might be sufficient to alleviate the 'clutter' you speak of, since this will remove the heading rows which are disproportionately large for single-item tables. However, before going down that route I would suggest you might like to consider Wikipedia:Manual of Style (glossaries) which defines a very precise syntax to be used. If you wish to re-format the page along those lines, fine, but I have no desire to spend time reformatting this page myself (even if it needs it!), and I suspect Andy is of the same opinion.

EdJogg (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'd be quite happy to re-format the thing, because I'd do it in seconds with a powerful editor and a few regexes, rather than the usual WP-hosted edit window. The idea of any human having to do it longhand is a bit painful.

What I don't have the time to do is to chase down a "better" or "best" format for glossaries. Current one seems "adequate", although I can see some benefit to chunking a shorter one. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What is this powerful editor you speak of? I already took care of A-C, and I have taken a few glances at the Manual of Style on glossaries, but I haven't done any deep reading. Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 14:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Naming consistency

Bored with this. Are we using "fire tube", "firetube" or "fire-tube"? cf. "water(*|-| )tube". Then let's start enforcing consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest the hyphenated form is correct. Using a space can lead to contextual problems within the text, and should be corrected always. The hyphen-less version is probably just the 'natural progression' of hyphenated words in common usage (or simple ignorance!) but the pronunciation is still hyphenated, as it were, so I would normally correct these too.

Have you found much inconsistency? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've written plenty of it! Hyphens it is then. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Internal coding style

I'd suggest following List of boiler types, by manufacturer as an example here, particularly for the use of anchors and internal links. Entries like "fire tube" should have a see also to their corresponding "water tube" as the important contrast, but these should be internal links within the page, not wls off to a full descriptive page. The point is to present the contrast (and quickly), not to lead directly to a full history of water tubes.

The first major link for each item should be a wl or redlink to the full article where such an article is likely to exist (now or future). These may often be to fragments within a broader article, with piped links. If it's too minor a topic to ever exist independently (after all, the function of these glossaries) then it should be bolded but not be a link.

Anchors should be provided for all glossary entries, and provided consistently to save effort and errors in referring to them. These will use Sentence case. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

As a related aside, I discovered that the A-Z contents bars do not work for non-existent headings. For example, nothing happens when 'U' is selected, although normal practice would be for such an action to lead to the following populated section. This is not really surprising, and the solution is relatively simple: add 'anchor' links for the missing letters (to be removed on list expasion).

EdJogg (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fix'd that with {{CompactTOC8}} Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 14:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

High maintenance, but it clearly works. (That's a very powerful template!) -- EdJogg (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Copy the article to notepad and hit Ctrl+H for the win. High maintenance? Not really. :D Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 14:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"High maintenance" in that any editor adding content that affects the TOC will need to manually change the TOC parameters (in an external editor if they think of it -- I suspect that only the techy ones might!!)

-- EdJogg (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep it on my watchlist. Where can I find a list/set of external editors for wikipedia? Also, I'm not entirely sure about the rules on this, but would it be possible to store the TOC for this page on a user subpage and make all of the TOC's on this page transclusions of that? Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 15:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just use my favourite coding editors (jEdit or Eclipse).

For transcluding the TOC, how about a subpage of the page itself? {{Glossary of boiler terminology/TOC}} Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

...or maybe not. Looks like local WP config only wants the Template namespace for transclusion (Always annoys me, things like that - I mostly work on intranet MediaWiken). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Those boogers are picking nits again. Shall I create a template specifically for this article? It's entirely possible. Kerdek (Tell me if I screw up) 17:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Template it is then. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested additions

consider condensate, economizer, efficiency, swell, NOx, burner, sight glass, pressure relief among others...--Billymac00 (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Layout change

This article currently uses a totally overwrought layout which negatively affects both its readability and maintainability. I converted it to a proper definitions list, in line with the exemplary glossary of cue sports terms, only to be hastily undone. I don't believe that there is any reason not to use definition lists here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, prefer the reworked layout, much like Glossary of association football terms. Just tidy up the (poorly used) references, the en-dash issue and you've got a half-decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• As has been noted from the start, this article (and List of boiler types, by manufacturer that was started at the same time) used an interim format lifted from some other article. Changing this has been discussed before, but no-one was sufficiently offended by the current format to change it.

As far as I'm aware, there is no agreed format for a glossary like this. There is certainly not a "proper definitions list" format (if you think there is, then please point to where it's defined) and it's even tenuous if "definitions list" (with its HTML connotations) is an appropriate term. Taking glossary of cue sports terms as an exemplar might be a good idea, but it's still a long way from "the proper format" - strict single-format prescriptions are rare on WP.

None of this is really the point though - the edits that "improved" this article's format also broke its content, and were reverted on that basis, not the format. Format changes should not be done at the cost of internal links, outbound links or the referencing.

As to the exemplar of glossary of cue sports terms, then I'd note that it doesn't use any images. The images are a significant part of this glossary, maybe not for cues, and they should be preserved. The chunked, table-based format keeps them small in size (comparable to the glossary entries) and approximately aligned with their text. We should not use the large images, as in the reworked glossary, as they were too large and uncoupled from their locations.

TOC entries are useful too, in long lists with any sort of alphabetic chunking. Despite claiming that glossary of cue sports terms (and its use of {{CompactTOC8}}) is the exemplar to follow, these navigation templates (in both glossary articles her) were either tagged for deletion or removed entirely, rather than switching to {{CompactTOC8}} as would appear to be the best direction to move in. So are you claiming that this "proper definitions list" should have no embedded TOC, contrary to glossary of cue sports terms? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Glossary of association football terms uses images perfectly well by the way, inserted at the appropriate position in the glossary. The current thumb embedded in a table is very unappealing. Besides, we shouldn't force images to be small or large, other than lead images, we should just use either thumb or thumb and upright (for portrait images). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thumb certainly has advantages for image sizing, as you describe. The trouble is that these shouldn't be "thumbnails", they ought to be "pinkienails"_(sic), as the appropriate size for a glossary of many short items isn't the same as that for thumbnails in a single topic article. Perhaps thumb|upright is enough? upright doesn't work properly for portrait images, as it's implemented as a "small thumbnail" not a "portrait thumbnail", but that's closer to what we want here. The field tube, and anything equally long and thin can still be hard-coded as an exception. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

SMcCandlish is working on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries, though it's some way off right now. What should be clear is that <dd><dt> pairs should be the canonical format for definitions like this, as that's why HTML provides them. Conversely, tables should not be used for mere formatting, which was what they were being used for here, and that's why the table format was dismantled. As for the size of the images, right now (at least on my 1440*782 display, which is a fairly typical widescreen resolution for PC-level devices at present) the images all at least fit within the sections they're placed in without overflowing at the default user thumbnail size. To the best of my knowledge micro-thumbnails are not encouraged by any part of the MoS, and it is not obvious that we lose any clarity in the images by not strictly insisting they line up with the definitions they depict. The upright images can (and probably should) certainly be uprighted, but that's a rather minor aesthetic quibble rather than a deal-breaker. (I've now made that change.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Mud ring vs mud drum?

I have been reading an interesting old book about the development of steam locomotive technology in the US between 1900 and 1950, and I kept coming across references to the "mud ring". I googled it a few times, and I gather it's the area at the very bottom of the wrapper sheet, or water-jacket that surrounds the firebox, and it's purpose is to collect sediment ("mud"), exactly as the "mud drum" I see described here. I'm assuming the difference is due to the variations between water and fire-tube boilers and the shape mandated by locomotive boiler construction. Would anyone mind if I added a brief mention of this term to the entry on "mud drum"? Ideally it would be given a separate section, as it's not technically the same thing even though it serves the same purpose. It would be nice if anyone Googling "mud ring" could come up with a reference in Wikipedia on the subject. .45Colt 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by .45Colt (talk • contribs)

In Britain, the term "foundation ring" is used for the component which joins the inner firebox to the firebox wrapper. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not quite the same as either, although it overlaps with both. The purpose of a mud drum is to be a safe place, where mud can be allowed to build up and can be removed more easily. A foundation ring is a bad, but inevitable, place for mud to build up, so needs frequent clearing. AIUI, US locomotive fireboxes grew so large that the mud-management around the foundation ring needed more collection space than UK locos needed. The mud ring is thus a foundation ring that's deliberately lower than the grate level of the firebox. This is "a waste of expensive boilermaking", as this cooler part of the firebox has limited evaporative capacity. However it also means that mud build-up here isn't the acute safety problem that it is for UK practice.

Also, like some UK foundation rings and unlike others (UK waterspace here varied from 2" to 4" - look at Hoy's lessons on the L&YR), this is a wider space than the minimum needed for circulation, just to give some more mud space. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Might be some undue weight here, of sorts?

Is this article a glossary of boiler terms, or a glossary of railroad locomotive boiler terms? I know it's supposed to be the former, and I know why it sometimes seems to be the latter, so I guess my question is just, is this a problem worth fixing? (If so, I'm imagining that terms specific to railroad locomotives should merely be identified as such.) This isn't a big deal in any case; it's just something that struck me while reading this article for the first time. —scs (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)