Talk:Lasagna cell

PROD - RFD proposed without discussion?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I just started working on Lasagna battery article, added as part of an explanation in Reference Desk: Science, and returned to find your RFD proposal. But very oddly, I find no comments on the article talk page. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't such behavior akin to vandalism? Please explain your intent.

(I assume that you have little experience with physics education, and aren't aware that the "Lasagna Cell" is fairly well known (PIRA physics demo 5E40.25), explains a mysterious effect seen in refrigerators, although is not popular as a lecture demonstration in the way that Lemon battery is popular.)

My sincere apologies for not employing the talk page earlier. That may have been around the time my wife was, um, strongly suggesting that I put away the laptop for a bit.

To be clear, however, I did not AFD the article, I prod'd it. As stated in the prod template, at the time I read the article it sounded a bit to me like something someone made up in school one day. Since it is a prod, and not an AFD, you (or anyone) is free to remove the template, which I see that you did.

Obviously, vandalizing the article was not my intent, nor would it ever be. Likewise, no offense to you personally was ever intended. Hope this helps. OscarTheCat3 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CSD? Entire article removed by admin without any explanation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

So, where is the article? It's gone, as is the redirect from Lasagna battery. I guess we change this topic to "Thoughtless admins who delete entries without prior discussion." Since I had just added refs to the article, there is no excuse for such actions. At least they could have searched google on [1]. Only 22 hits, mostly about the science-activities book dealing with Lasagna Batteries, etc. --Wjbeaty 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, Tizio deleted the article. I'm not an admin, so I don't know much more than that. Might want to contact Tizio and ask him/her. OscarTheCat3 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've never encountered this sort of silent and sudden Admin deletion before, and I didn't know how to find logs for something that no longer exists. --Wjbeaty 09:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tizio deleted lasagna battery only because it was a redirect to a non-existent (deleted) page. Lasagna cell itself was deleted by User:Zoe with the only comment "nonsense". This presumably refers to speedy deletion criterion G1 (patent nonsense) which is definitely misapplied here; the page is not "unsalvageably incoherent", so I'm going to restore it. Though there's obvious need for proper discussion on the future of this page. Since the topic is rather narrow, how about merging with the subsection at galvanic cell and keeping this as a redirect? Femto 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Though there's obvious need for proper discussion on the future of this page. Why? It's not obvious to me. Note that this article page is just a few days old, and perhaps I don't understand the WP policy for stub-like short articles, but it was my impression that new articles are given a chance to grow. They're not just removed a few days after creation without any prior talk-page discussion. --Wjbeaty 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean it's clear that someone (mistakenly) thought the page should be deleted, so if there (still) are concerns about the credibility of the topic, these obviously need to be properly explained. Or if not, "proper discussion" may be as simple as having determined that the default action to keep the page was not reasonably challenged. Femto 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what's going on. I'd appreciate it if you'd contact User:Zoe and see if she'll actually discuss her actions. I note that in her user page she specifically requests that other Admins have discussions with her before reversing her decisions. I also note that in her talk page she has entirely stopped responding to all user questions or complaints, and this has gone on for quite some time. Is she having some bad times? --Wjbeaty 22:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Darned if I knew (User talk:Femto#Lasagna cell). Note however that possible responses don't necessarily have to appear on the same talk page. Femto 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Arg! I'm an idiot. I wasn't aware that users on WP ever carry on conversations via two separate user talk pages. (Hmmm. If you're not watching this page, maybe I should port this over to User talk:Femto#Lasagna cell). My habit is to always put the originating page on watchlist, then respond only there. That way nothing is even slightly hidden. Using two pages hides conversations from third parties. Huh, that probably explains why this Admin on my talk page never replied. So I totally misunderstood the User_talk:Zoe page and the apparant lack of back-and-forth conversation there. More of my ignorance: as a non-admin, I was clueless as to Wikipedia:RC_patrol and Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol and the saintly people who perform these tasks. I stumbled upon these via Wikipedia:Speedy deletion patrol. Zoe is doing immense amounts of thankless drudge work... and of course avoiding large numbers of long exchanges with complaining users like me. That possibly explains her avoiding conversation here an on the AfD. Still, "oops ,sorry" would have made all the difference. --Wjbeaty 00:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now started AFD... again without any discussion here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The weirdness continues. The same admin User:Zoe has now started an AFD without any prior comments here as to whether such action is needed or even appropriate. Weirder: even on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lasagna_cell she doesn't discuss her actions, and her entire reasoning consists of the single word "nonsense." --Wjbeaty 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An AfD is a discussion about deleting an article. It would be weird to require one to discuss whether to start a discussion. Tizio 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's technically correct, though I don't quite get the reason for it either, especially since the only result so far was to establish clear consensus that the page is not nonsense. Femto 16:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd have probably done the same

Zoe clearly thought the article was nonsense and deleted it as such but in the light of later argument decided that a full discussion on AFD was the best course of action. This looks entirely reasonable to me. As Tizio says she doesn't need to discuss whether to start a discussion. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification & Elaboration

I'm not sure I'd call the article "nonsense," but it's very hard to understand without prior knowledge of the terms involved, and seems to put more priority on explaining why metal sticks to the salty food over explaining the principles behind the food's new status as a "battery." I'm assuming, for example, that the spots of corroded aluminum become the terminals of the cell, but it's never spelled out. Also, there should be some explanation of terms like "Galvanic corrosion" as they relate to the lasagna cell.ShaleZero 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I'm proposing this for deletion mainly because I can find hardly any reference to a 'Lasagna Cell' online other than quotes from Wikipedia. It's not comparable with the Lemon battery, which is a recognised school experiment. However, in electrochemistry, there is no such thing as a lasagna cell, it's just a galvanic cell and the corrosion is just galvanic corrosion, the same as any other galvanic cell. There must by thousands of similar examples, each with the same low level of notability that wouldn't be justifed in having their own page, even as a redirect. The Galvanic corrosion article contains an explanation on how salty food can cause corrosion on aluminium foil and this is sufficient I think, otherwise we are just perpetuating the myth that a lasagna cell is somehow a different entity - it's not. Apau98 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't checked policy relating to proposed deletion and articles that have been AfD's before, sorry.Apau98 (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)