User talk:Викидим

This user uses the personal pronouns
he, him

My nickname is a Cyrillic projection of a Greek: Βικιδημος portmanteau, something along the lines of Greek: Νικόδημος ("victorious people", cf. Nicodemus). It is intended to mean "[of] wikipeople". If you have hard time finding Cyrillics on your keyboard, feel free to address me as Wikidemus or Wikidim (any other reasonable transliteration is OK, too).

Electrolytic corrosion

Hi! I have no problem with properly covering the difference in a single article as you prefer, but why did you describe my stub as “poorly sourced”? I provided multiple independent sources that support the claims, so I am confused as to what your objection to the sources is. — tooki (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Dear colleague, You have provided exactly two sources: (1) Corrosionpedia, which is a community-based resource (like Wikipedia) and as such does not make a great WP:RS and (2) belmontmetals, a commercial site. Given that the term is more than century old, and has countless peer-reviewed sources covering it, these two can be considered poor sources, IMHO. Викидим (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for taking the time to reply.

OK. Perhaps, then, “poorly sourced” is a suboptimal term to use for the objection, because “poorly sourced” implies insufficient sourcing, rather than sufficient sources, but issues with the quality of those sources. This may be an issue of language subtlety, because in English, “poorly sourced” and e.g. “uses only poor sources” have different connotations.

I disagree with your characterization of corrosionpedia as a “community-based resource (like Wikipedia)”: while anyone can request to become a contributor, they very clearly state the types of contributors they seek (industry professionals from selected fields), so it is highly unlikely that just anyone would get approved to become a contributor. And contribution is done in exchange for payment. Thus, it is very unlike Wikipedia in that only those approved contributors can make changes. Wikipedia allows anyone — even anonymous IPs — to create or edit content, and that is decidedly not the case for corrosionpedia. I don’t think it actually meets the criteria for user-generated content per WP:USER.

On a separate note, I got around to looking at the source you added to the galvanic corrosion article, and it appears to confirm my own understanding that fundamentally, galvanic corrosion is a specific subtype of electrolytic corrosion. Would this not imply that electrolytic corrosion either deserves its own article (which I now think might be better, so as to have a clearer description of the actual physical processes happening), or that if they are kept together, that they should be under the article “electrolytic corrosion”, since that is the overarching effect? Getting a fully fleshed out article on electrolytic corrosion was my ultimate intent when I created the stub.

Regards, — tooki (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I suggest to skip the discussion about the subtleties of English language used for comments and talk pages (and not in articles) and get to the meat. As far as I can understand, you raise two points:

1. corrosionpedia as a WP:RS. I base my position on their own pages About Us ("This site is advertiser supported", "All of our contributors are free to write on any topic they choose", "Corrosionpedia takes no editorial point of view regarding any subject matter. All contributors are welcome to produce content with any point of view"). While the founders also state that "[a]ll articles are subject to editing and approval by our team of professional editors", based on the previous statements and the background of the two founders (finances), I understand this as checking the contributions for the proper use of English language.
2. relationship between "electrolytic corrosion" and "galvanic corrosion". IMHO the former term is old and little-used since 1950s (it is clear from Google Ngrams: [1]), so using an electrolytic corrosion as an umbrella term is not the best choice, IMHO. I am not an expert, but an actual overarching term appears to be electrochemical corrosion (cf. [2]).

Викидим (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Nonetheless, it is not by any means user-generated content in the sense of WP:USER (see also https://www.corrosionpedia.com/about/contributors ) and its own editorial standards at the About Us page you linked above: “Our aim is to provide the highest-quality content from industry experts on a free platform.” By stating “from industry experts” it is clear that it is not user-generated content, which is so far your only expressly-stated concern about the source’s reliability.
2. I’m not an expert, either, but I do know that “galvanic corrosion” is distinct from electrolytic corrosion in terms of what “drives” the corrosion. “Electrochemical corrosion” might be a better umbrella term indeed, but I don’t feel quite knowledgeable enough to make a solid determination either way. Do you have a suggestion on how best to proceed?

Regards, — tooki (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Duly noted.

1. Here I see a simple disagreement between on what can be considered a quality source in this field. As an ex-researcher (very far away from the corrosion, naturally), I feel that a site where users with some skills in the field (including technicians and "coating specialists") are allowed to post texts on any topic they choose is not that different from Wikipedia. You think otherwise. There is no reason for us to continue discussing that: the field of corrosion research is very established and full of sources that we both will accept as truly reliable. My proposal is to agree to disagree on corrosionpedia, and simply use the wide variety of very solid sources freely available.
2. My proposal for #2 is to do nothing, I am OK with the status quo (waiting for an expert to come and point us to a truly good source). An alternative is to go through some good (i.e., peer-reviewed, like regular research articles and books from reputable publishers) sources, get a consensus on which ones we would all like, and design the article structure accordingly. This field is not rocket science and not politicized either, so together with other editors we should be able to reach consensus on the sources rather quickly. If you would rather prefer the second way, feel free to suggest such sources on the talk page.

Викидим (talk) 02:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

1. It is somewhat concerning that you see practically no difference between a publicly editable wiki (Wikipedia) and an industry website that pays vetted professionals to write for it. (Anyone can apply to write on corrosionpedia, but it doesn’t mean they will be permitted to! That is a huge difference.) While I completely agree that academic sources are better, I do think it’s important to be realistic about the relative quality of sources, and to be accurate in identifying the nature of a source. Corrosionpedia is decidedly not user-generated content like a forum or wiki.
2. Let’s wait and see what others say. I haven’t yet had time to do a deep dive on the topic!

— tooki (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation

The company was not renamed to Piramal. Pirmal was an existing company which took over this company and merged with them. History of DHFL and Piramal are different. There should be an article which tells about the history of DHFL until take-over by Piramal.
Anish Viswa 04:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

There was (and is) already a section in the Piramal article about DHFL that is much more detailed than the old text of the DHFL article. If anything is missing, we can just add the information there. If the result becomes WP:TOOBIG or WP:UNDUE, we can always split the article into two - but currently I see no issue whatsoever. Викидим (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge to Tardigrades in space

Wikidemus, I'll be happy to support this, but you'll need to start a Merge proposal thread on the Talk:Tardigrades in space page to put your proposal. We already know from the Talk:Tardigrades on the moon page that at least one editor opposes the move, so the proposal will need to be clear and persuasive. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I just did. I am a slow typist. Викидим (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Babonen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)