Open main menu

Mothball fleet imageEdit

Greetings, User:Huntster. Very excellent adding that image of the Mothball Fleet. I was just lamenting with an elder sibling the absence of one at that page. An entire generation Baby Boomers has that fleet imprinted in their minds, but there had been nothing to show for it at Wikipedia. It’s great to share it with those who never had the chance to see it themselves. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikiuser100, it's just a shame that this image is the only one I could find on Commons. If you happen to know anyone that took photos of the fleet, getting them to donate one (or some) to Commons so that something of higher quality is available would be amazing. Huntster (t @ c) 19:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd wondered if you were the original uploader; the interface on a smartphone would not reveal it. I thought I had looked for an image at Commons when I made edits on this subject a few years back. Guess not. No matter...I have found some excellent images that I think can be used here, with proper attribution, but am a bit over my head on the matter. They are from the New York State Digital Collections, and are, for example, used at a blog,'s Ghost Fleet web page, with a generic attribution statement. I believe the same basic images would work well here. They start appearing at page 2 here.
How do we attribute them? I'm willing to do the uploading, as soon as I know what licence and language to use. Thanks. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikiuser100, I sincerely apologize for not replying to this before now, I simply failed to see that there was a reply. I've been mostly absent from Wikipedia as of late. Just haven't been feeling it. The archive above is an excellent find, but as their copyright page states, images that are known to be public domain will be marked as such. Unfortunately, the images you are wanting aren't. You would need to contact the NYSA (probably at with the identifier numbers of the images you want, and see if the copyright status can be better determined, or at least determine *who* holds the copyright, since it isn't clear from the image pages. It's hard to say, but if it was a State of New York work, then this suggests that the work will remain copyrighted. Huntster (t @ c) 20:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

"Template:Mars map" coordinates now updated.Edit

Thanks for uploading the higher-resolution file "File:Mars Map.JPG" - noticed that this altered the image map coordinates of the related "Template:Mars map" - since noticing the altered coordinates, I reset/updated the coordinates using the "Easy Imagemap Generator" at "http//" - all now seems ok with the template (and related "Template:Features and artificial objects on Mars" and "Template:Features and memorials on Mars" templates) - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Drbogdan: I'm sorry Doc, that's my mistake. I thought the coordinates in the template were based on the indicated size of the image, not the actual size. Sorry to make you do that extra work. Huntster (t @ c) 21:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Huntster - Thank you for your reply and comments - no problem at all - I think I've improved the mapping locations a bit - besides, I thoroughly enjoyed the exercise, and reconsidering the relevant Martian locations to best feature - nonetheless, any further improvements always welcome of course - in any case - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

"File:PIA23126-CepheusC&Bregions-SpitzerST-20190530.jpg" may need attention?Edit

Thank you *very much* for all your recent help, esp with the Tabby's Star plot image and related - on another matter - a different image may need attention => File:PIA23126-CepheusC&Bregions-SpitzerST-20190530.jpg - seems my initial attempts to upload this 50mb file could have been better - my final effort (noted as "more complete image - 2nd effort") seems to have been the best - should the earlier attempts (incomplete uploads & cropped complete but smaller versions - now perhaps taking up XS space) be deleted in some way? - Thank you for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Drbogdan, it really doesn't matter to be honest. They are all your attempts, and unless you want to hide them for some person reason, they don't need to be removed. Deleting past versions doesn't actually remove them from the server, it just hides them from public view. So long as you are happy with things right now, it'll be fine. If, however, you still notice a problem with the image itself, I can try to finagle something wrt to uploads.
Here's a hint...for images existing at the url, you should be able to click the source URL radio button on the upload form and past the image url directly in, and let the server transfer it from there. It may just be for admins, but I think the url is whitelisted for everyone to transfer directly from. Give it a try and let me know how it turns out. Huntster (t @ c) 20:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and suggestion - no problem whatsoever re the earlier images (thought they might be taking up unnecessary space at Wikipedia) - as for the url (not clear about a "source URL radio button" on the upload form - don't see one?) - nonetheless - afaik - and if I understand correctly - all seems to be well here on what seems to be available - the source link on the upload form seems to work very well for => - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and help - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Drbogdan, oh, perhaps you're already doing this? On the upload form I use ( there are two ways to upload... either with a local file or by direct url. That's all I was referring to. Direct url has a *much* better chance of uploading properly for large files. Huntster (t @ c) 21:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Huntster, ok - got it - wasn't thinking about that particular form - but it's good to know - yes - agreed - a direct url seems better of course - Thank you for letting me know about this - it's appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


I need some advice, Huntster.

Two weeks ago, an editor did an undiscussed (no consensus) page move of Starship (rocket) to Starship (spacecraft), merely asserting in the move that "This is a spacecraft."

I did not catch it right away, and now it can not be straightforwardly moved back without an admin, since both names are now filled.

It is, of course, both a rocket, and a spacecraft; as the article prose makes explicit. Unusual, as you know.

But it seems to me, that unlike almost any spacecraft before it, it will live a long and somewhat fruitful existence as a rocket, before it ever first becomes a spacecraft. Moreover, SpaceX has begun to talk up single-Starship (no 2-stage Super Heavy + Starship) point-to-point Earth travel with the thing. I think that the more common name for it, in skads of news articles now, is rocket, so thinking "rocket" is the best disambiguator. But that's just my opinion.

Either way, I think it should not have been moved without a discussion, so many editors might weigh in and we could try to find a consensus.

So I just don't know the best way to bring the topic up now, given it was moved without consensus, and really should just go back the other way per WP:BRD, and then have the discussion joined if editor Soumya wants to make a proposal.

What is your advice for next steps for me to take?

Thanks. N2e (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

N2e: such an active topic shouldn't have been moved without discussion, and it wouldn't hurt to raise the discussion now. Bring all the points to the table. Thing is, the article has been moved since June's a bit late to move it back, imo. Personally, I support the "spacecraft" disambig, for the reason of its design intent. Yes, it effectively functions as a second stage, and maybe even a point-to-point system, but the intent is being a passenger and cargo carrying vehicle, far beyond the scope of merely being a rocket. For that reason, I think it is a spacecraft over a rocket. But, discussion to find consensus is the right way to go, I think. Huntster (t @ c) 02:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your advice, Huntster. Appreciate it!
If it would be strongly debatable thing now (as perhaps indicated by your view), it would probably not be worth the time to articulate the issue and argue for proper process. So I suspect I'll not bother. The editor that did that is doing quite a bit of edits that aren't standing up, and they typically leave no edit comments.
If an ex post discussion were to get started now, and Starship (spacecraft) were to be the outcome, even though no correct process was originally followed to move it from the status quo ante of Starship (rocket), I suspect editor Soumya-8974 would just learn the wrong lesson; which would be doubly bothersome to me. Life is sometimes tough, but as one of my favorite profs used to say: "Reality, is not optional." Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
N2e, I can see why you might think discussion now might be counterproductive, but I think I disagree on that topic. Yes, perhaps the user might feel vindicated, but maybe he'll learn something about our processes. That said, I did notice that user is edging very close to being disruptive with his editing practice. This could easily be another talking point in your argument. In the end, do what you feel most comfortable with. Huntster (t @ c) 03:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Amy LeeEdit

Hi, the genre categories require sources and support in the article body, per WP:CATV. No mention of Amy Lee's genre in her article at the present time. Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Elizium23, sure thing. That's an incredibly brain dead requirement, when the inheritance is obvious and without question. Just another reason I work here less and less. Huntster (t @ c) 06:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel WP:V is brain-dead, but there are many excellent reasons why we can't just add naked categories without any documentation or support. Elizium23 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't the point, but sure. Cheers. Huntster (t @ c) 07:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Huntster".