User talk:Huntster/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Serial comma in New Zealand English

Cease and desist. Tayste (edits) 08:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Tayste, no. Did you not even read the link? It very specifically says "On the English Wikipedia, use the "logical quotation" style in all articles, regardless of the variety of English in which they are written." In the Humanity Star case, the comma is not part of any quote, so it goes outside the quotation marks. If you don't like it, take it up with the MOS or on the article's talk page. Otherwise, follow established procedures on the site. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You say that the comma is not part of the quote. Therefore mos:lq does not apply; instead wp:engvar does. Back off and leave it alone as it is. Tayste (edits) 09:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not about a comma being inside or outside a quotation. It's about the use of the serial comma, which is not used in this country. Tayste (edits) 09:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Tayste, with apologies, I can only think I was hallucinating or something. I clearly saw an edit that moved the comma inside the quotation marks, which is why I quoted what I did. I have no idea why I saw this, as obviously this isn't how you edited. I still disagree with the serial comma thing and don't believe Engvar applies here, but for this situation I'm absolutely in the wrong. Sorry about that. I'll make a null edit saying as much in the edit history. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey buddy

I couldn't stop by wiki without stopping in at your place to visit. How you doing Huntster? - hope all is going well for you and yours. I do sort of miss some of the folks here - you being at the top of the list. But ... my loss of patience in my extended years makes it a better solution to just drop by now and again to say hey. "Hey" :-) — Ched :  ?  — 17:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ched, hey buddy! Miss you around here, but I definitely understand where you're at. I just avoid the dramas at all cost, avoid conflict. I focus on spaceflight and just keep a low profile, lol. I'm doing okay, got some health issues that have cropped up lately. Hope you are doing well! — Huntster (t @ c) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor-planet object articles – format standards

Dear Huntster, long time no post. Thank you for your edit in one of the minor-planet object articles you made lately. Would you mind to have a (rather tedious) talk about these amendments?

Since your changes potentially concern articles I have revised consistently over the last two and a half years, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these discrepancies with you, namely:

• the removal of {{mpf}}
• and linkage to Julian year (astronomy)

Another edit concerns (357439) 2004 BL86, where some amendments have either far-reaching consequences, are difficult to implement, or are simply hard to understand. Best, Rfassbind – talk 21:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Rfassbind, you certainly don't need permission to discuss issues! What's the worse that can happen, that we disagree? ;) Regarding the two things you specifically point out: the formatting in {{mpf}} is highly irregular with regard to general Wikipedia formatting. It is distracting and completely unnecessary. Regarding using "year" rather than "Julian year", that's my mistake. If you can point to a proper converter for Julian times to days, it would be appreciated. One other thing: regarding {{mp|357439|2004 BL|86}}, you changed it back making mention of whitespace in the infobox. I'm obviously not seeing what you are seeing, as it looks exactly the same with the template as without. If there is some replicable problem, then the template needs fixing. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick feedback before I come back with a more concise disscussion. For my edit on 2004 BL₈₆:

1. (357439) {{mp|2004 BL|86}} is better than {{mp|357439|2004 BL|86}} for parameter |mpc_name= simply because on naming, it is much quicker to amend, e.g. (357439) Somename
2. The white spaces I mentioned, refer to the regular spaces you added before and after the <br />-tags.
3. I don't think that "year" should be linked at all in the article's body. There are already too many terms that need to be linked.
4. In the "External links" section, {{JPL small body}} is the last entry in most other MP-articles.
5. {{Minor planets navigator}} adding redlinks of "neighboring" minor planets is hardly helpful/maintainable (and distracts from the "central" link to LOMP.

Rfassbind: Point by point replies: — Huntster (t @ c) 17:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I fully admit I don't understand how this would be easier.
2. Those spacings are a somewhat personal preference, as it makes visually parsing the wikicode a bit easier. They do not in any way impact the resulting article display.
3. If the year being referred to is a standard year, then I agree. However, a Julian year is defined differently, and at least providing a link would be a service to readers to avoid confusion. The JPL SBDB uses Julian, and almost all our minor planet articles rely on it.
4. No issue there.
5. No issue either, but I wonder if there is even a point including the template on an article when it's the only entry. Kind of defeats the point of it being a navigation footer.

Thx for your quick and detailed reply. Follow-up:

1. Because on naming, when the article is moved to 357439 Somename, one simply needs to replace "{{mp|2004 BL|86}}" with "Somename" (param "mpc_name" is the only instance that contains a "parenthetical number" and might by easily overlooked when amending). This is just a small part of a larger effort to prepare articles for efficient future amendments when being numbered and/or named.
2. I wouldn't use spaces around <br />-tags. They can be confused with double spaces and newlines (which do impact the result). As far as I remember you are also using a code-highlighting script (which is basically a must-have for these kind of edits). Frankly, I'm so used to it that I can not tell whether the content is hard to read for others. What about separating parameters vertically when they contain numerous figures? Such as in this example. Would this help for a better visual parsing? In this example, I also used the "u"-parameter for all {{val}}ues with units. Do you also thing that this is the way to go?
3. Edit to add a link on Julian year (astronomy) in the body of the article. Maybe I wrong, but it seems to me that you are overthinking this. The link is already used in the infobox where a decimal notation of the orbital period is given: 229.84 yr (83,950 days) while the body of the article contains "...orbits the Sun at a distance of 32.4–42.7 AU once every 229 years and 10 months (83,950 days; semi-major axis of 37.5 AU)", using non-decimal, rounded years and months, making the statement true for any kind of year for an orbital period within a reasonable timeframe, I presume.
4. OK
5. The {{Minor planets navigator}} template basically is a navigator for the catalog (and allows to toggle between the list and the article) not for existing articles. The central link, which always exists, is not a self redirect (as you might have presumed?). For the first few thousand numbered minor planets, of course, it may also serve as a navigator between sequentially numbered articles in most cases. But that's not the template's main benefit. Alternatively, the caption of the infobox could provide such a link directly to the list of minor planets. What do you think about it?

Rfassbind:

1. Heh, I'll take your word and accept, as I just don't get it.
2. I would not use vertical spacing, tbh, except when something like {{plainlist}} would be appropriate. I think it would just further clutter already cluttered code. I definitely agree with your use of {{val}}.
3. I can agree with leaving the Julian link out when it is a mostly rounded statement. I'm more concerned with reader comprehension when the figure is highly precise, as it usually is in the infobox.
4. OK? OK! :D
5. I'm not terribly concerned about the navigator's inclusion, really. It just seemed out of place with only a single link (which would quickly get an ordinary hard-coded navbox deleted). If your described behaviour is as-desired, as well as redlinking neighboring small bodies being discouraged, perhaps it would be a good idea to include all that in the template's description so future editors know what's going on.

Sorry for the delayed response, not sure why I let that happen. In addition to the above responses, in your most recent edit to 2011 KW48, you restored the {{mpf}} formatting. You never explained that side of things, and to be honest, it is the one thing above all else presented here that I object to. Formatting in very specialised conditions is okay, I think, but general usage in prose should absolutely not have special formatting unless it is unavoidable (such as when using the math tag). To be blunt, that template should never have been created. There is no explanation on when use is proper or even why it exists at all; there is no discussion of its use anywhere that I can find. It just seems you implemented it during your minor planet rewrite campaign. MPC doesn't use it, nor does SBDB, so where is this oddball formatting prescribed? — Huntster (t @ c) 15:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

XM234, XM233, XM235

Dear fellow, would you mind showing to me XM234, XM233, XM235 anywhere in the article's last revision [1] you've just reverted ВоенТех (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

ВоенТех, I think I saw something that wasn't there. I've reverted myself and done some additional cleaning. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverts

There's a particular type of bias called "cognitive ease", see [2] and [3]. You may want to check it and know about it. Drow (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
PS Starting to talk like you are talking to a child is required even in the beginning of the most prominent seminars dedicated to the most prominent experts. Trust me.

Drow: Not sure what you're getting at here. Your specific complaint in the article was that the opening sentence lacked context, but failed to provide further reasoning. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Leon103102

This user hasn’t been socking recently so can you unblock him please. 73.93.152.91 (talk)

No. Even by posting here, you are violating your indefinite block. Note that your account has additionally been locked across Wikimedia, meaning you are not allowed to edit, period. Please stop asking. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

References without a date and with the wrong author name: Samuel or Sam Hinchliffe

A disruptive editor, Samuelhinchliffe1991, has been evading his block with IPs. If you see anyone add a reference without a date that has the author name listed as Sam or Samuel Hinchliffe, you can just delete it rather than waste time trying to format it properly. The author is never Hinchliffe, and the reference is not usually needed. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, thanks for the heads up. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Cariba Heine

Sorry, Huntster – but I'll need to kick this one back to you, or I risk reverting at this article too much. On my end, I cannot access the Facebook link the IP has quoted, so I continue to be skeptical. (Somebody needs to tell them about WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOHURRY!...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

IJBall, yeah, I've been trying to keep an eye on it. Not sure why this editor is so bound and determined. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

IP's still at it – and I still can't get the URL they're posting to work... (But, yeah – this is completely a WP:NOHURRY situation.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

IJBall: Wow, that went beyond plaid in silliness. I've protected the article for a week...perhaps that will encourage some dialogue rather than simply flailing about. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Kaylajaneb17 looks like an attempt to pull an end-run around the semi-protection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yongchang County, Zhelaizhai & Liqian

I have made some changes to the Yongchang County, Zhelaizhai & Liqian pages, the ones about the Roman soldiers in western China. Let me know what you think of the edits so far, and please make some edits if you are interested. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, I've done some touch ups on those three, expanded some citations. While I wish there wasn't so much duplicate between the three, overall they look fine. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

給您的星章！

	原星章
	Thanks for the improvement of the quality of the articles related to the alleged Roman legion in China (Yongchang County, Liqian, and Zhelaizhai). I am learning a lot about proper citation methodology through reviewing the edits you made. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Geographyinitiative, thanks, not a problem. Don't hesitate to leave a message if you have questions. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy Adminship

Wishing Huntster a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Mercury dates

Sorry, I had a mix-up in my commemoration. Purgy (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Purgy Purgatorio, it's no problem! Stuff happens :) — Huntster (t @ c) 01:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Climate Observatory

In regards to your reversion of my edit on Deep Space Climate Observatory, you are absolutely right that individual humans have absolutely nothing to do with history or the shaping of human behavior... Keep up the brilliance... Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, I love SpaceX and support all their endeavours, but there's no reason to mention Musk in an article about a space probe that was simply launched by his company, just as there is no reason to mention Tory Bruno in an article about a probe launched by ULA or, going forward, mentioning Jeff Bezos for a Blue Origin launch or Richard Branson for a Virgin Galactic launch. It simply has no place and looks to readers to be a mention for the sake of mentioning. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Huntster, I added Elon Musk's name to distinguish who SpaceX is since most of the readers/users of Wikipedia would actually have no idea at all who the person behind SpaceX is. In an era when not a single nation in the world has been capable of launching a spaceship that can land on the moon for 45 years, I think the efforts of some individuals, such as Musk, do actually matter. I did it so that the article in question did not sound as rhetorical as it currently does without the personalities behind the actions that take place. I personally think less is not more. It is simply less. But since you insist that your opinion is the only one that counts in this matter, I will defer to you. Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, I don't know why you think my opinion is the only one that matters. You brought the matter to my talk page, and I simply attempted to explain my justification for the revert. You can always go to the article's talk page to see if others wish to express their own opinions. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I could do that but you seem to believe that you own the article and have the final verdict on the article... It is not worth fighting over bully activities such as yours on an allegedly collaborative intellectual vehicle such as an encyclopedia. Your word is final as you persistently maintain... The difference between you and I maybe that I believe individuals do matter, while you apparently maintain that individuals are extraneous to human activities. In particular, I believe that Elon Musk's involvement with the space program is a weighted activity where his initiatives and contributions in an industry where he had to sue through the courts for a long period of time over the right to participate in it, distinguish him from each of the other entrepreneurs and administrators you mention above. So on that basis I do not believe it is extraneous to the article, and I do not believe that corporations such as SpaceX which are more than 50% controlled by a single person, are extraneous to the success of the endeavor... In reference to your above arguments, they are are ridiculous. What do other people on the article Talk Page, have to do with your personal actions? You were not acting on a mandate on behalf of a group. You are your own posse. You were acting on your own impulses, whereby you see corporations as being anonymous entities that are guided by invisible people. I do not see them that way... But you have silenced me from my small input simply because my contribution is not to your liking - or more precisely, something that you would personally add to the article as a contribution. Why type of collaboration is that? Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell. please notch it down and chill There is no call to turn a Discussion of a simple WP:BRD into an repeated attack on an editor. You have accused Huntster of "insis[ing his]is the only one that counts in this matter", of "believe that you own the article and have the final verdict on the article".

You made a Bold edit; it was Reverted. Don't turn your unhappiness about that outcome into an attack on another editor. N2e (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stevenmitchell: I'm sorry you continue to feel this way. I gave you my reasoning, I presented you with an alternate option. There appears to be nothing else I can do for you. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

BFR (rocket) images

Hey Huntster. Someone recently added a couple of images to BFR (rocket) of two old facilities that are to be demolished. I have so many questions, and don't know how to improve them. The descriptions seem odd/incomplete. No good story on why those images should even be kept in Wikimedia. ...nor, in the WP article, why either pic ties well to the article, or especially, why we have two of them. The additional info on WM seems to be lacking context. Also, we have just a photographer's claim (no source) that these buildings are "to be demolished." Does WM require some semblance of sources? (some of the bldgs on the site SpaceX has leased are historical and the lease doesn't allow SpaceX to tear them down. So it is entirely unclear which buildings are going, and which are staying; with no sources provided.)

Am I just seeing this wrong? Maybe those pics are perfectly okay? But if not, I don't know what cool tags etc. ought to be used to suggest improvement. N2e (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

N2e, I've gone ahead and removed them. At the time of the photography, nothing seen has relevance to SpaceX. I sorted the images into a better category on Commons...nothing wrong with them existing, and (sometimes unfortunately) images do not require citations other than to show origin. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Image of AT2018cow - ok or not?

May need help with an image => "File:Possible AT2018cow 244.000927647 +22.2680094118 20180624.png" - the image is for the newly created "AT2018cow" article and is from http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr14/en/tools/chart/navi.aspx?opt=G&ra=244.000927647&dec=22.2680094118&scale=0.1981 per the "Sloan Digital Sky Survey" - the image-use page is at => http://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use - PD is mentioned, but so is cc-by, which doesn't seem to have a related Wikipedia template? - in any case - Thanks in advance for your help with this - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Drbogdan, that image use refers to the imagery being CC-by, and the actual data (as in database) being public domain (likely they meant uncopyrightable, but same end result). So, I've updated the image description. Would you mind if I re-uploaded the image to remove the gridding? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Huntster: Thank you for your comments - and updating the image description - no problem whatsoever re re-uploading the image and related - Thanks again for your considerations - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The Design and Engineering of Curiosity by Emily Lakdawalla

I'm curious about the many books written about Curiosity. kencf0618 (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A simple search of "Curiosity rover" will yield a multitude of results. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Curiosity - Communications subsection

Regarding your removal of the image of Curiosity's high- & low-gain antennas: I think it should be kept there to help readers visualize the rover's onboard communications system. My reason for duplicating it is so that readers looking for a gallery of Curiosity component images can see the antenna image even if they are not interested in the text section, and vise versa. Again, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm interested in a more in-depth explanation of your decision on this. XYZtSpace (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

XYZtSpace, simply speaking, we don't duplicate images. It isn't codified in policy, but you'd be hard pressed to find others who would support such a notion. We have such a huge array of images to choose from that it shouldn't be necessary. Another consideration is layout in the article. This was what actually prompted my removal before I noticed the image was a duplicate. While everything may fit on lower-resolution monitors, the higher you go the more vertically compressed you'll get, resulting in some very weird appearances. It's always better to keep the layout simple. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

About Wicca as modern witchcraft

Good morning, Huntster!

I saw your reversion on my edit at Wicca. I'm aware that Wicca is not at all strict synonym with modern witchcraft, much less with witchcraft itself. I thought writing that "called by some of its adherents" would be enough to put it clear that it was not a rule, but in the end you were right: a example backed by a source would be the ideal. As soon as I be able to get it, I re-write it. Thanks again for the obs. Have a nice day! EleassarBR (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC) EleassarBR (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Advice about dealing with a crank (to be unfair)

I know you from your edits about spacecraft, so asking for advice about plasma physics articles is a stretch. But you seem sensible and experienced, and I think I need advice. On the Aurora and Double Layer articles, I've run into problems with another editor. Although he is using a pseudonym, I have good reasons to suspect he is a person with strong views which most of the scientists working in the field disagree with.

I'm not asking you to look into edits, or to offer an opinion on the technical details. Looking over the talk pages should be sufficient. I'm asking for advice on the appropriate way to resolve a difference between editors. I'm new enough to Wikipedia editing to be uncertain on conflict resolution processes, and any advice you could provide would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Weird edit on Hubble page

On Dec. 26 2017 you updated the orbital elements for Hubble. However, after the orbital period there's this weird string: "1.35.25.83" (it can be seen on the current revision). Is it some IP address (though it doesn't appear reachable)?

SopaXorzTaker (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

SopaXorzTaker, after thinking about it, I know what that is: orbital period in hours.minutes.seconds.decimalseconds. I have no idea how it snuck in there, or (for that matter) how it went unnoticed for so long. Thanks for pointing it out...I've removed it and updated the elements again. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

old edit question (Salyut 2)

Hello Huntster: Please see a question about Salyut 2 Talk:Salyut 2#Crew?. You were an editor of this page when "Crew" was changed from "0" to "3". A reply on that talk page is fine.

Separate question. What is a "talk back" template that you ask us to avoid using? WP doesn't describe it, at least not where it is easily found. Thanks on both points. GeeBee60 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

GeeBee60, looking back, it was actually this edit which changed the crew number to three. AFAIK, my edits were only converting pages to new template code. My guess is that the "3" was meant to reflect how many crew would normally be on the station.

Talk back refers to {{Talkback}}, used to alert an editor that there was a reply to a message on a particular discussion page. Their use isn't nearly as widespread as it used to be, but it doesn't change my hatred for the template. Actually, it's rendered mostly irrelevant since we can tag editors with {{u}} and {{ping}} these days. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Huntster, Yes, I thought so regarding Salyut 2. The editor who changed it is long quiet, and the change didn't show up until you fixed the template. I may modify it at some point, though is a detour I don't need to go down (which doesn't seem to stop me).

Every time I think I've figured out some WP aspect, instead I learn a new level of my ignorance. Thanks for info. GeeBee60 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Space Barnstar
		For your tireless contributions to space related articles. Hadron137 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Hadron, I appreciate that! — Huntster (t @ c) 17:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Johnston's Archive – don't judge a book by its cover

Please do not remove references and external links to the Johnston's Archive (JA) as you did here. The JA compilation is one of the best secondary sources on binary minor planets, recommended by the LCDB and even listed at PDS. Rfassbind – talk 22:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

About reverted edit to List of Stargate SG-1 characters

Hi! I want to ask, why did you reverted my edit on page List of Stargate SG-1 characters? FaHTa3eP 17:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

FaHTa3eP, it's not really notable in an encyclopedic sense, and it falls under "personal observation" more than anything. Yes, it was a running gag that Siler was always shocked and injured in interesting ways, but it simply isn't pertinent here. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GSAT-15

FYI: It appears you changed the orbit_periapsis= and orbit_apoapsis= units in with this edit from distance to mass. An anon just changed it back to distance, but not sure if it is correct. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Jim1138, thanks for looking out. That was entirely my mistake, just got ahead of myself and the IP fixed the error. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Easy to do; probably have done it myself many times. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Help re Asteroid "101955 Bennu" image?

May need help re: "File:Asteroid-Bennu-OSIRIS-RExArrival-GifAnimation-20181203.gif" - seems the added category (ie, [ [Category:Bennu]]) could be better (ie, image is an asteroid - not bird) - apparently, editing the image file contents is restricted to administrators? - iac - Thanks in advance for your help with this - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Drbogdan, I've updated the categories, as well as uploaded a full resolution version of the image. Let me know if there are any other issues. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Huntster - Thank you for your help with this - categories are now much better - the newly uploaded full-resolution gif is excellent - and impressive imo - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WSMV 2015.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WSMV 2015.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Is this photo properly licensed???

Hey Huntster.

COuld you maybe take a look at this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Raptor_Engine_Unofficial_Combustion_Scheme.png and see if all the licensing is in good order? I'm pretty sure "HVM" is not the uploader. Moreover, when I wrote HVM on some forum about that image a week ago, he says he only vectorized the image, and gives all credit for the image to author "JWL" (listed on the photo text) (who is a very senior retired rocket engine engineer, also active on that forum).

I saw it a couple of days ago added to WP and figured that the ordinary natural processes of Wikimedia would analyze it, tag it if necessary, and delete it if warranted. (I am asking HVM and JWL about them uploading the image all proper and such.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

N2e, as it stands, I'm not exactly comfortable keeping the file. I couldn't find where it was originally posted, and quite frankly unless the original author uploads it, I'm not hugely trusting of its province simply because it's a forum. Since you know more about its background, I'd consider sending it through the Commons:COM:DR process. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention...if this is a vectorisation of a modification of an SSME diagram...who made the original original image? — Huntster (t @ c) 02:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

JWL (the retired rocket engineer) made the original edits (he is user livingjw on the nasaspaceflight.com forum) in some form of raster graphics. It is a very good quality image, as these things go. He simply started with the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) graphic; but put in LOTS of content from sources on the Raptor FFSC (full flow staged combustion) design. HVM simply came along and re-drew it in vector graphic form. HVM told me he would be willing to license to Wikipedia (private communication) if livingjw thought okay; subsequently, livingjw seemed to say (in public forum) that he was fine with that.

The problem is just that the uploader is NOT HVM, nor livingjw (aka JWL in the graphic image itself). I can get it sorted eventually with those two, I suspect; but am really tight for time this week. Huge workload at work; plus conference event. So nothing soon.

I don't have the time to challenge it through any process I don't already know; and as you know, I just don't know all the various graphic/image wikimedia processes. But I can tell you that it appears to have been uploaded through some form and not by the original author. Later. N2e (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

N2e, yeah, I'm not concerned with timeframes or anything. I would simply suggest that the original author be encouraged to upload his work, then the vectorised version can be uploaded by HVM as a derivative. I can follow up and tidy things; I just need them to provide the work and the license, rather than guessing about such things. As you say, the entire problem is that some unknown individual has uploaded with a...who knows where that license came from. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an admin at NSF (same ID) as well as here on en:wp. (but not that active) I used to be an admin on Commons but forgot a lot of stuff. I was asked to weigh in on this... I'm in tune with the general theme here, except concerned that the image is used in articles so a substitute SVG ought to be uploaded first before pursueing deletion of the PNG. Once the image was in place, it's an easy edit in the article to switch from .png to .svg in the link. The image is hosted at Commons. Are you an admin there now? I asked about this at the Commons help desk ++Lar: t/c 07:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I think the original SSME image was PD (from a USG document IIRC), and a defensible argument could be made that this new one is original work not derivative, in case it isn't... ++Lar: t/c 07:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for fixing the spaceflight template! Neopeius (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Allure of the Seas

I see you have changed the infobox to reflect the length mentioned in a couple of newspapers. The official figure is that given in the existing ref which is from the classification society and is a better source. I appreciate there is some dispute about the actual length caused by the temperature when measurements are taken so I have no problem if you want to use your sources to expand on the prose but the previous figure given in the infobox is official and sourced so I ask you to revert your edit Lyndaship (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Lyndaship, while I appreciate that DNV's status, we know from multiple sources that each successive Oasis-class ship is considered longer than the previous build; Oasis herself is listed at DNV as 360 m, and Allure is listed there as also 360 m, which simply cannot be accurate. So, we use the third party sources rather than a primary source such as DNV or RCCL. Unfortunately, I've never been able to find reliable third party sources for Harmony or Symphony, and we're forced to use DNV. Thankfully DNV shows a realistic figure for Harmony, but shows Symphony as *shorter* than Harmony, which by all accounts is simply wrong. Harmony is universally recognised as the longest cruise liner in the world, so I've been at a loss on that count. My restoration of those lengths falls squarely within Wikipedia's mandate to use third party sources, so that's where we're at. Thoughts? — Huntster (t @ c) 11:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. On Allure/Oasis it would appear to be a case of evaluating sources. I feel that DNV is a far better source than what a couple of travel writers churn in their RS newspapers possibly from a RCCL press release with no checking however it would be ok to state that sources disagree and mention this in the prose if you wish to give them credence. As I recall that when the builder of Allure announced she was 50mm longer than Oasis they qualified this with but this is probably just a difference in the air temperature today but of course for RCCL it was a marketing mans dream - a new longest ship. On Symphony/Harmony DNV is correct as to length, Symphony is shorter than Harmony but has a higher Gross tonnage and is therefore the larger (but not longer) cruise ship of the two. Lyndaship (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Star Image ok?

If possible - re newly created article "EPIC 204376071" (very unusual dimming star, up to 80%?) - is the related image (ie, "File:NASA-Wise-EPIC204376071-ScrnImg-20190306.jpg") ok - seems to be ok afaik, but maybe a good idea to be more sure - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Drbogdan, yep, it's an IPAC/WISE image, so its PD-NASA. Please be careful about using generic categories for these images. Categories need to be as specific as possible to keep others from having to spend time cleaning out the top level categories. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)