Archives

2016 2017 Awards Bots Drama Fun Old

Hello! Your submission of Falcon 9 booster B1029 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The article has one broken link that needs to be addressed, I believe; other than that, this article is good to go. Michael Barera (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can help me with something that's been bugging me. In this edit of mine, I'm not 100% confident in the word "column" there. Look at that link and see if you think another word would be more accurate. Things like "feature" and "section" have crossed my mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Column sounds good to me: some people still read paper! — JFG ^talk 13:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you´re right [1], though I see it as something of the Mar-a-Lago of his pop-culture. Can I have your opinion on somehing related? Today I noticed Template:Trump family, changed "descendents" to children (that and "ascendents" sounds a little pretentious to me), but then I noticed that son-in-law and uncle don´t really fit either way (potential tasteless jokes aside). Any thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for your comments. I saw your change from "descendants" to "children" and I think it's better. Jared Kushner used to be listed as spouse of Ivanka Trump, not as son-in-law of Donald Trump, I think it made more sense that way – would you agree? Trump's notable uncle and sister fit rather well with parents and other ancestors, but we could tweak the section title from "Ascendants and siblings" to "Ancestors and relatives" (will do). There is also a duplicate link to "Ancestry", as an earlier article was merged, I'll remove that. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, got a flashback to old discussions at Swedish royal family. Anyway, Jared is good, and "Ancestors" is better than "ascendents". To me it still sounds a little pretentious, but it´s shorter than "Parents, grandparents and relatives", and somewhat motivated by the inclusion of Trump family. Other US presidents don´t seem to have this particular template, am I right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: for previous presidents, their family is included in their overall navbox. However, Trump's navbox was already yuuuge before he started his campaign, so that it was split into {{Trump businesses}}, {{Trump family}}, {{Trump media}} and {{Trump presidency}}. Now the {{Donald Trump}} navbox also includes the family and I feel it should not be duplicated. It's hard to decide what should be included in there. My personal suggestion would be to use {{Trump presidency}} as the main navbox. Ideas? — JFG ^talk 07:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One navbox to rule them all. It´s not crystal-clear to me what´s "best" here, though logically {{Donald Trump}} should be best for Donald Trump. Personally, I´d like a (collapsed) everything-and-the-kitchen-sink navbox under the current one, but of course, such a nav-box would be... well, you know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:pretentious, we could say "Parents and relatives" instead of "Ancestors and relatives". — JFG ^talk 07:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, tried an edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Now you made me curious about Swedish royal family! Why are the current King and Queen only named "The King" and "The Queen" in the family tree? Is this some protocol tradition? That looks quite pompous and uninformative to readers; I would suggest "King Carl XVI Gustaf" and "Queen Silvia" but I don't want to disturb the peace if there's indeed consensus for the shorter designations. Just being curious…— JFG ^talk 07:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really can´t say. SergeWoodzing, an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where they are listed. Most formallly, in Swedish, they are given as the King or the Queen without names, just as the Queen is in Britain etc etc etc . In lists less formal and/or lists that feasibly should be more informative, I would add their names. We are here to inform, after all, not to adhere to the strictest formalities in every instance. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — JFG ^talk 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this edit summary isn't a correct justification. If we were talking about the company Forbes, "its" would be correct in American English (not in British English though); however, in this case we are talking about The World's Billionaires, which is compiled by a team of reporters and, therefore, a collective "their" is appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: So you're saying I was either right for the wrong reason or for the wrong WP:ENGVAR… Thanks for the note! — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my comment was pretty redundant but I thought it was worth it in the interests of completeness. Or it may be just because I'm an asshole grammar Nazi. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Space Barnstar
		For your amazing and ongoing work managing the content at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches‎, well done. Good god man, how do you not have a space barnstar yet? Let's fix this travesty right now. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 08:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Blush), you made me proud, CleverPhrase! Upwards! — JFG ^talk 10:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have closed the practice about the requested move of Lega Nord. But cannot a request be extended beyond two weeks if there isn't an agreement? Because in that discussion 5 users are favorable and 5 users against (Some of them even using arguments that have been denied)...--Wololoo (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wololoo: The discussion had already been extended by one week and attracted only one new comment. Discussants offered valid arguments both ways, and I saw no trend towards an emerging consensus. I would suggest a 6-month pause before trying again. — JFG ^talk 14:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not all users offered valid arguments, in particular an affirmation that was clearly denied (the academic texts), for this reason I think the discussion, vitiated by questionable statements and with the same number of users pro and again the move, can not be terminated.... :( --Wololoo (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recourse is WP:Move review; not sure it would support your stance, though you're free to try. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok --Wololoo (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The definition for "child" in Webster includes: an immature or irresponsible person ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This goes right into my Fun section hall of fame. Facepalm — JFG ^talk 17:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing recent work on closing RMs. Just as an FYI, WP:RMNAC says that non-admins are supposed to use Template:RMnac anytime they make a close. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Tony. I hold the opinion that experienced page movers can dispense with the {{rmnac}} signature, unless the close is particularly sensitive. I'd be happy to open a discussion to amend this particular guideline, now that we have some hindsight about the unbundling of the page mover right. — JFG ^talk 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I know you're an experienced editor and work in the area, I was just calling attention to the guideline since it has been raised at least one MR recently (and I think more than one before June, but I don't feel like searching through the archives.) My main concern was that I really don't want more move wikilawyering in move reviews over the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Been through a couple move reviews myself, all endorsed. Which is why we should update this guideline, which was written when only admins were trusted "by default" with page moves. {{rmnac}} should only be mandatory for occasional non-vetted editors; they of course are welcome to assist with discussion closures but the label is a courtesy to more experienced users scanning the logs that maybe they should read such closures a bit more closely. At move review, the close must be evaluated strictly on its merits, irrespective of who closed it, be they a newbie, an admin, a page mover or a BDFL. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of some who are still opposed to basically any NAC of an RM, but IMO RMs are probably the most NAC friendly environment on-wiki because of the debundling. The Template:RMnac currently has a parameter that will link to page mover closure at WP:RMCI. It might be worth either changing that parameter to change the text to page mover closure or create a new template for that for the people who would still want a nac to be identified as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Wouldn't the most direct solution in this case be to make JFG an admin? If you nom, I'll second, even though noms don't need seconds. bd2412 T 21:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a possibility, though the recent trend at RFA has been for admins to nom: I suppose given the nature of this thread a non-admin-nom would fit though. Might not help the chance of success, but it's at least poetic :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm flattered but I don't want the mop and bucket. Unbundling worked well for my needs, which are covered by page mover (proud first recipient!) and template editor rights. I'll be sure to remember your kind patronage if someday I reconsider. — JFG ^talk 21:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to topic, I would suggest adding a couple lines to the WP:RMPMC guideline, saying:

Page movers may use the special {{rmnac|pm}} signature, but they are not compelled to include it. The signature is recommended for sensitive cases, as a courtesy. Like other editors, page movers should exercise caution when evaluating the outcome of contentious debates. When in doubt, don't close.

Comments? — JFG ^talk 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support. I'd also support updating the template to make it clear without clicking that it was closed by a page mover. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: @TonyBallioni: (sorry, talk page stalker here) FWIW we had a long conversation on this last year some time, (I can find it if you're interested), and decided not to use any special templating for page movers. It is a technical right, to be able to move pages in that manner, not a community-endorsed right such as adminship, and therefore a close by a page mover shouldn't be implied to carry more weight than one by any other non-admin, and they should use the RMNac template like any other non-admin would. As an aside, I suspect both of you would make fine admins anyway, from what I've seen of you around the Wiki, without detailed searching for skeletons in the cupboard!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have updated {{RMnac}} to produce a different text for page movers: "(closed by page mover)" instead of "(non-admin closure)". Shortcut {{rmpm}} is available too. Amakuru, do you have a suggestion for an update to the guideline text, taking into account prior discussions and the new signature variant? — JFG ^talk 22:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nooo.. the whole point is it should not say "closed by page mover". Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_20#Template:RMpmc. The decision was to keep the text identical. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp. Let's pause for a moment, let me read the discussion. — JFG ^talk 22:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've skimmed it and I remember the debate. This was more than a year ago, when the page mover right was fresh from the presses, and people were unsure about potential abuse of the system and trustworthiness of the inductees. I think those concerns have subsumed and I would advocate a new discussion at WT:Page mover to check if consensus has changed. Meanwhile, the {{rmpmc}} I just created can be used as an experiment, and be reverted to the nac text if people don't endorse it. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As you'll see, I was one of those who argued against having different wording. It's not meant to be disparaging to experienced editors such as yourself, but more to remove the feeling that existed in the early days of the Page Mover right, that page movers had a "higher status" in closing discussions than any other non-admin. But since the right was pretty much just given out to anyone who asked for it, as long as they had 3000 edits and six months service, there was no proof that person had any sort of ability to judge and close a discussion, more than anyone else. I think it's better to have the wording be all the same, for anyone, and leave the page mover as a technical right.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understsand your point of view: we need to submit this to the community. Would you be so kind as to undelete {{RMPMC}} and let us run the experiment? I see you haven't reverted my code change on {{RMnac}}, so it should just work. If the community doesn't want a different text, that's easy to change back in {{RMnac}}; the {{RMPMC}} shortcut will still be useful. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, I don't like it. I think the decision last year was the right one, and still is - having page movers is a very useful thing, and reduces the administrative burden, but they aren't supposed to have extra status over others. Feel free to start the conversation at the talk page, and if you decide to recreate the redirects now I won't delete them again, but I personally think we should have the discussion first and then amend the text if and when the consensus from last year is overturned, rather than beforehand.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I get your point of view on this, and I'm not sure how I would !vote in an RfC because I think it's a strong view point. I agree with JFG that it's probably worth reopening now that we're over a year in to the page mover right. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Certainly. It's always good to discuss things and get the community's up-to-date point of view! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures — JFG ^talk 23:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 July 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Falcon 9 booster B1029, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the second reused orbital rocket in history, Falcon 9 booster B1029, was "extra toasty" upon coming back from the edge of space on June 23, 2017, to land on a drone ship? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Falcon 9 booster B1029. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Falcon 9 booster B1029), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, I was just in the process of changing that and you beat me to it! My edit summary was "learn something new every day!" Thanks for the education. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I created {{sources-talk}} a few weeks ago as I was tired of typing manual hats of sources in discussions, especially when they interfere with archive templates. Glad it helps fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 16:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that explains why I wasn't familiar with it; I'm glad to know I haven't been in ignorance of it for years. (Wouldn't be the first such thing, though.) Good invention; it definitely is our "friend". --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW does anybody know about this new template besides you and me? And now, I guess, your talk page stalkers? How do you publicize a new template? --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where to publicize such a thing, besides using it and seeing people copy it. — JFG ^talk 23:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used {{Reflist-talk}}, - what's the difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: {{sources-talk}} wraps around the usual {{reflist-talk}} and collapses the references into a grey expandable box labeled "Sources". It clarifies the discussion thread when debating text that includes more than 2 or 3 sources. You can copy and paste whole paragraphs of article prose including sources without bludgeoning the talk page space. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, sounds good! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your excellent citation work is gonna get you in trouble...specifically when I'm reviewing an FA candidate, you will be called. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFG -- The original Slate article was weak. I admit that. The Daily Signal article says, " 'You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,' he added. 'The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.'” I think that supports my assertion that the impeachment-minded members of House and Senate are looking to a declaratory judgment as a basis for moving forward in the House. This whole topic is so fraught. I don't want to upset anyone. I do think the reasoning is clear and reference sufficient. I'd ask you to reconsider your position and put the Signal reference back and retract the ^{[failed verification][original research?]}. All the best. Rhadow (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhadow, you may be mistaken: I didn't write anything about the Trump impeachment lately, didn't tag the text either. I think the extent of my involvement in this article is supporting the ongoing merge proposal with Impeachment March. — JFG ^talk 21:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I removed Trump's portrait this morning: [2] This is not the edit you are looking for… — JFG ^talk 21:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JFG I was concerned about your wiki on Donald Trump. It seems a bit biased and inflammatory. I could tell someone that wrote it must be a bit frustrated with the election results. I saw that you made an edit hours ago and thought maybe you could look over it and try to spot some of the biased comments. The page is blocked to protect liberal opinion and cannot be edited. I use Wikipedia frequently to get facts, not angry opinion. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Wilhuff Tarken (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have worked on this template significantly. I don't have much experience with these, so could you change the green line from "confirmed" to "served" since Kelly has changed posts? This way it will be up to date. JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JocularJellyfish: I restored the prior version: no need to update, this is a historical record of nominations and confirmations ending in May when the full first Cabinet was confirmed. — JFG ^talk 02:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG:, thanks for the update. JocularJellyfish (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3] - Say somebody came along and changed only the links. Could one reasonably point to #23 in their revert? I don't think so, since no links were included in any of the proposed language. That being the case, I don't think the consensus should show the links. If you feel that the previous text implied that the consensus was for no linking, you could add clarification of that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think of that scenario. I just noticed that all our consensus items had the exact links embedded, so I added them for consistency, and it's a good "copy/paste" reference that people can revert to. I think that if somebody wants to change the links without changing the text, we can have a quick discussion to settle that, without claiming that exact links are authoritative. Would you agree? — JFG ^talk 10:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the same quick discussion could occur without including the links in #23. If we want continued respect for the list, we need to be very careful not to include "riders" that weren't discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those links were there before the discussion, I don't think they are controversial in the least. You moved them on some more precise anchor text, and that's good too. If somebody complains, we'll discuss what to do with the community. — JFG ^talk 13:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the links are controversial but that they were not part of the consensus. We don't (or shouldn't) include things in the list simply because someone thinks they are uncontroversial. We have both done a fair amount of give and take re that list, but as closer I'm going to stand my ground on this one and revert that part of your changes per BRD. You're free to open a discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me if you want to remove the links, no worries. — JFG ^talk 16:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I closed the move request as "moved" this morning. You can carry out the link fixing now. I'll grab a few of those myself. bd2412 T 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Thanks for the notice. I've done a bunch, I think we're all set. Left a couple {{dn}} notices where I couldn't readily find out the correct target. — JFG ^talk 19:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Even a high-volume page can be knocked out quickly with a good plan of attack. bd2412 T 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the New York travails, we must be fearless. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate all of the work you do to achieve a neutral point of view in discussions regarding politics :) Jdcomix (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I second that star, doing a pretty good job! PackMecEng (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdcomix and PackMecEng: Many thanks; I'll cherish this star as my favourite birthday present! — JFG ^talk 16:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being completely earnest here; those pages need more comments like the one I responded to.[4][5] Too many people get too caught up in it (and I'm not just referring to the political right; the lefty editors and even apolitical editors do this, too) and get waaaaay too upset. It would, IMHO be a damned good thing if a few threads were to degenerate into back-and-forth comedic quips from time to time, rather than petering off when the most vocal editors lose the page in their watchlist, or exploding into shit-stirring AE fodder. Those (too few) of us willing to crack wise on those threads really should band together and Make Talkspace Great Again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word. Alas, taking oneself too seriously is a modern-day Wikipedian^[1] pastime. Seems you and I have thick enough skin not to be intimidated by holier-than-thou WP:RGW warriors! Keep the jokes coming! — JFG ^talk 23:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: Speaking of vocal editors and shit-stirring, do you have an opinion on this recent instance of drama escalation? IMHO, we could all be indeffed under that standard; quite the chilling effect. — JFG ^talk 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I was unaware of that particular fecal weather pattern. I remember the ANI thread that kicked it off; that was quite the orgy of drama itself, and I think it's a bit of a shame that Niftz wasn't blocked right away based on their behavior in that thread alone. Having taken a read through HT talk page (my god, what a read. I think I'll be re-reading the Cryptonomicon next, just to take things down a few levels) I have to say that I'm seeing it much the same way I'm seeing politics on WP in general. Essentially, all the editors with political views have lined up in opposing lines and declared their sides. Simultaneously, all of them deny having taken a side. The more moderate editors argue cogently and (more or less) civilly, while the more extreme editors hurl accusations back and forth, mostly remembering to phrase them in ways that won't earn them sanctions.

I'm going to avoid giving an opinion on the central question of "Should HT face sanctions and if so, what sort?" mostly to save you the hassle of reading the two or three paragraphs it would take to get through my thoughts on that. But I will say this: A lot of people claim that WP has a systemic liberal bias. I'm not entirely convinced of that (though I don't dismiss it out of hand at all), but I am convinced that WP needs to do something about the partisanship going on. I can count the number of editor I've seen take both left-wing and right-wing stances on political disagreements on one hand with fingers to spare. Honestly, if it were feasible, I'd go through a list of all the editors working in the topic and topic ban every single one who hasn't gone against their predominant POV at least once, on an issue that wasn't blatantly obvious. (So, a liberal editor declining an edit request to call Trump a piece of shit in wikivoice wouldn't count, but if that same editor took sides with conservative editors on the wording of a statement about Trump, that would count.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You had me at Cryptonomicon. I think I'll go on a binge of Snowcrash, Neuromancer, The Diamond Age, the complete works of Tolstoi in Russian, and finish myself off with À la recherche du temps perdu, Pléiade edition on bible paper (magnifying glass sold separately). For the rest, 111% agree with you. Good night! — JFG ^talk 20:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to some of the drama on this site, that sounds like toilet reading fare. (I actually keep a copy of War and Peace next to the toilet, with a bookmark in it, just to screw with guests). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be appropriate? Vehicles?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, where should a rocket go as a subcategory of Category:2013 introductions? Yes, Category:Vehicles introduced in 2013 sounds good, or introduce a Category:Rockets first flown in 2013 alongside Category:Aircraft first flown in 2013, plus Category:Spacecraft first flown in 2013 for Cygnus (spacecraft). But such categories would probably be too sparse, so vehicles sounds appropriate. By the way, I don't see why we have the 2013 vehicles category listed as a child of both Category:Products introduced in 2013 and Category:2013 introductions, given that the former already inherits the latter. But I suck at categories... — JFG ^talk 21:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the way they were when I found them. While, in some cases, putting items into multiple intro cats can be justified I think vehicles should be its own separate cat. Granted, on some level everything is a product - NASA ordered space shuttles from Boeing, right? - alot of these vehicles are not consumer products, which I think was the purpose of the products cat.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the "Products introduced in X" category is dedicated to consumer products, then it makes sense. Thanks for the tip. I have placed Cygnus in Category:Vehicles introduced in 2013, and your probably wanted to work on more rockets and spacecraft: enjoy! — JFG ^talk 03:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello and know how you are. Well, I'm writing to ask you some help regarding Sabrina Ferilli's page in English and French, would you give her a refreshed and improved? right and not more than 10 minutes of your precious time. If so, if I can then return the courtesy you will be grateful for it infinitely. Thanks and greetings from Coreca--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino, I have never heard of Sabrina Ferilli and I am not active on movie actors and actresses, therefore I do not think I am the best person to assist you. Try posting a request at WT:FILM perhaps? — JFG ^talk 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its launch capacity is more than 6.5 ton delta v 1500m/s GTO not standard 1800m/s GTO. That is superior than Proton.If you think it's just a midium-lift rocket .Proton should be updated from Heavy-lift to Medium-lift. ITO666 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ITO666: The definition of "heavy-lift launch vehicle" refers to its LEO capacity being over 20 tonnes. GTO capacities are not an easy-to-compare yardstick because they depend on the upper stage capabilities, the orbital inclination reachable from the launch site and the targeted Δv as you point out. Proton-M can lift 23 tonnes to LEO and has proven it by delivering some heavy ISS modules (even with the earlier Proton-K). I have not seen any such capability published for the upcoming H3 rocket. The H-IIB which currently flies HTV cargo missions to the ISS can lift 18.5 tonnes to LEO and 8 tonnes to GTO (more than the announced figure for H3), yet it is still classified as medium-lift. — JFG ^talk 04:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About LEO

GTO & LEO launch capacity is homologous . The more GTO capacity represents more LEO.H3 launch capacity on GTO is beyond Proton & H2B(19ton) and its LEO is more than Proton. ITO666 (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, GTO capacity is not automatically proportional to LEO capacity, for the factors I cited above, and perhaps others. Take a look at Comparison of orbital launch systems to check a few examples of discrepancies between comparing LEO and GTO figures among a pair of launchers. For example, Ariane 5 lifts a lot more to GTO than Proton-M (almost 11 tonnes vs almost 7), but Proton lifts 10% more to LEO (23 tonnes vs 21).

Do you have a source showing announced LEO capacity for H3? That would settle it. — JFG ^talk 12:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H2B 8t GTO is delta v 1830 m/s. Ariane 5 is launched in north latitude 5 degrees （Earth spinning faster）so its satellite can approach to GEO by 1500 m/s. If Proton is launched in Guyana,its GTO will be 9t. 51 degree inclination LEO(ISS orbit) of Proton is just 19t not 23t.Ariane 5 LEO capacity will increase by HM-7b instead of MBB Aestus.HM-7b is more efficent and higher thrust (so the payload weight is more than 21t ATV) ITO666 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Any LEO data on H3 specs? Note that Proton-K launched the 22,776-kg Zvezda module in 2000^[1], and Proton-M is slightly more powerful, so definitely closer to 23 tonnes than 19 towards the ISS orbit. Regarding "Earth spinning faster", that's an advantage of Kourou, but the inclination change has a lot more impact. See how Soyuz rockets launched from Kourou can lift much more into GTO than the same from Baikonur or Vostochny. — JFG ^talk 18:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The weight of Zvezda encased instruments is 22.7t. its lsunch weight is only 20t. Kibo pressured module launch weight is 15.9t and full load weight is near 30t. ITO666 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JFG, I undid a series of your edits related to merging the August and September missile launches over Japan to the main North Korean missile launches article. I would say it seemed to me like most editors are for keeping the August article; I don't know if most editors are for keeping the September article. I'm personally in favor of keeping both articles, as these missile launches were very significant for a variety of reasons. If you would still like to merge the articles, I ask that you open a thread, possibly on the talk page of the main North Korean missile launches article, asking people if they think the articles should be merged. Sincerely, Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas: I've seen your unmerging, and placed my comments at Talk:August 2017 North Korean missile launch over Japan. Let's discuss there. I'll add a notice at Talk:2017 North Korean missile tests as you suggest. FWIW, I don't see on what basis you can say that "most editors are for keeping the August article", because this does not seem to have been discussed anywhere (unless I missed it). But by all means, let's start to discuss it... — JFG ^talk 16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This archived close of an RfC on the Alternative for Germany talk page differs to how I remember it - did you change it at all? (Retired editor Wormwood) 193.60.83.75 (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched it, see my closing edit back in April. Are you considering a return to the 'pedia? — JFG ^talk 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just remember it being worded differently - and no, I have no intention of returning. Thanks, 193.60.83.75 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, thank you for your recent signficantly constructive edits on NYC. There's this one edit though that I think is problematic. I didn't realize it at first, but the problem then becomes that there would be no other reason to mention any specific universities in the lede, for WP:UNDUE reasons, and I believe that would be overdoing it. Thinking further about it, I think it's entirely reasonable to place the rankings in the lead section as notable, and it's been thought of as reasonable for a few years now, although we know how well that reasoning has worked out (New York (state) ;). But in all seriousness, university prominence I believe is entirely appropriate and not uncommon in a city article lede. The problem now is that this User Attic Salt, who has somehow just escaped a sockpuppetry investigation even when he/she edits like an experienced autoconfirmed editor and yet their oldest edit is listed as being placed on 22 September 2017, less than one month ago, is doubling down on your edit. Upon thinking about it, do you still feel that way? If so, we'll just have to remove all mention of the universities from the lede, and again, I believe that would be remiss. Castncoot (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've reached a compromise in the meantime, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot: Glad it worked out. The compromise seems reasonable. — JFG ^talk 02:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Castncoot (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were you still intending on writing some text for this? Here’s hoping the inspiration strikes, Humanengr (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not tonight, but thanks for the reminder. Perhaps over the weekend... — JFG ^talk 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JFG. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my attempt at overhauling the List of Presidents of the United States at my sandbox. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Why not have the link to the presidency below their name with the title (Administration), instead of occupying another column and repeating their name. Galobtter (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFG,

I noticed that you were active in a discussion about 'whataboutism' in July this year. It seems that I, logging into Wikipedia only sporadically, again missed to comment when it mattered, when there was a 'Request for Comment.' I'm not very familiar with the procedures on Wikipedia with regards to votes. What's the status of the lede of the article? Does the lede now count as the consensus of the editors? Can the lede be changed without another vote?

I criticised the article back in 2014, and it seems to me that one of my points of criticism still hasn't been addressed: If "whataboutism" is such a "famous" Soviet propaganda tactic, why isn't the term mentioned in the relevant literature (scholarly texts about propaganda)?

As far as I can see, nobody so far has come up with citations from scholarly sources, let alone from before 2008 or even before the end of the Soviet Union. Maybe I'm missing something, but all that's provided in in the lede and the section 'Soviet Union Period' were not scholarly sources but newspaper articles resp. opinion pieces. Not exactly the high quality sources you'd expect in an article about a historical topic.

It seems to me the article is misleading the readers in multiple ways. But what can be done about it? I'd like to hear your thoughts, if you want to share them.

Best regards Larkusix (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the length of some shipwreck lists has been raised at my talk page. Not sure if you will get the ping as I added it after the initial reply. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JFG. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JFG. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archinaut, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bradv 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on Talk:Jeffrey C. Mateer. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your latest additions indicate that the Japanese Mars Terahertz Microsatellite will piggy-back on the Emirates Mars Mission, however, neither of those articles state that, and I have found nothing in the web to that effect. Could you please show a reference to that effect? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked recent sources; however the Emirates Mars Mission is the only mission powered by a Japanese H-2A rocket going to Mars in July 2020. Probably we can find a Japanese-language source confirming the arrangement. @Fukumoto: could you perhaps take a look? — JFG ^talk 16:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By cursory googling, a September article of Sankei News writes that they are intending to seek a ride on NASA or ESA rocket.

• http://www.sankei.com/economy/news/170903/ecn1709030005-n2.html

--Fukumoto (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Can that article be cited to say either:

• as of September 2017, discussions to arrange for a piggyback on a NASA or ESA primary mission were ongoing."
• as of September 2017, no arrangement for a piggyback on a primary mission had yet been reached."

Or would another turn of phrase best convey the present situation? No mention at all of talks with the H2A-powered Emirates mission? — JFG ^talk 21:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fukumoto: any comment on what we can say at this stage? — JFG ^talk 21:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find no further information at the moment. I think the second expression is better. --Fukumoto (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thank you. I have edited the article accordingly.[6] — JFG ^talk 02:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the guidance. Given that I have, in effect, asked this question with no response several times from talk page participants in recent discussions, my intent here was to request feedback from a wider audience in advance of suggesting specific changes to the article. Given that DN has responded, would you suggest I remove the RfC template or ?? Humanengr (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Humanengr: Your RfC asks a generic question about international relations, hence my remark to mind the WP:NOTFORUM policy. It's easy to drift into nonproductive discussions on these highly-charged political articles. You also fail to suggest a specific article change. For both these reasons, the formulation does not fit the community's best practices for raising an effective RfC. Indeed, removing the RfC template would feel more appropriate, so that the section would become a simpler discussion to confront your ideas to those of fellow editors, without having a specific article change in mind. Relevant changes may eventually emerge from such confrontation of viewpoints. In addition, some of the questions you are raising seem to apply to the category system rather than to the Russian interference article per se, so they may be better debated on relevant category talk pages or wikiprojects. — JFG ^talk 12:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the RfC template. Would the following be more suitable?

[Title:] RfC: Should the bottom navbox include a parent category to accompany the eponymous category "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"?

[Intro:] Given that there is a historical record of nations intervening in / interfering in / influencing other nation’s electoral processes (see, e.g., this Oxford Journal article cited as ref 2 in Foreign electoral intervention), the omission of a parent category such as ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ (or similar) to the eponymous category yields the distinct impression the current article describes a one-of-a-kind event. This RfC is intended to address that misleading impression.

It is requested that those opposing inclusion of a parent category provide rationale for maintaining a ‘one-of-a-kind’ status. (My questions on this issue in earlier discussion remain unanswered.)

Humanengr (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This might turn out not to be needed, depending on discussion pursuant to my latest post on the Talk. Humanengr (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well … perhaps I should proceed as above with some additions from my recent posts. Your thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the successive updating. I'm reworking in accordance with guidelines and will handle from here. Thx again for your cmts. Humanengr (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to add from my side. If the discussion does not pick up, perhaps editors are just not interested. You're possibly reading too much into the goals of the categorization system. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JFG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tikuko: This draft was replaced long ago by several timeline articles, no problem deleting it. — JFG ^talk 17:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in spaceflight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auriga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JFG...I'll be the first to admit I'm a neophyte about CU procedures as evidenced here. Considering there are times when it becomes apparent that editing is not about NPOV & getting the article right, rather it's about how many editors agree with a particular POV/version of right, it only gets worse when you add the cowardess of block evading IPs and socks who are there to pad iVotes and cause even more disruption on the TP. It can be a real pain in the . This one is the most recent for me. The behavioral pattern is one I've seen before as I'm clearly the target. I guess there's nothing that can be done to stop them if they're using a cellphone while traveling, or happen to be stationary using a VPN...or is there? Do you know if WMF ever got around to completing a cost-benefit analysis regarding unregistered users vs registration? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks that you learned a lot about SPI and CU processes today! They are indeed not trivial at first sight… In the case that currently bothers you, I would advise you to simply ignore the IP's comments. As explained in WP:SPI, CU investigations are not meant to "out" a particular editor. Egregious socking can usually be identified per WP:DUCK symptoms. In personal disputes and conduct matters, admins will generally request IP commenters to log in before taking their input into account.[7] A cursory glance at the Matt Lauer merge discussions you were involved in shows clear consensus against your position, so it's time to move on to other areas of editing.

Finally, be aware that millions of IPv6 addresses start with "2600:", that is not evidence of anything. To equate two IPs to the same individual, would have to see a much closer match in the address, e.g. a long prefix string, or very clear similarities in behaviour (tone, timing, involvement). Neither was the case when you reported 2600:1005:b10c:…; admins noted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block evasion that there was no apparent connection to Kingshowman; sorry I put you wrongly on his track, I was just citing him as a notorious example of the way some persistent block evaders operate (see WP:LTA). Have a great day! — JFG ^talk 08:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: No idea about the current WMF position on mandatory log-in. This sounds contrary to Wikipedia's spirit on its face. Vandal-combating tools have improved so much in recent years that IP disruption can be kept in check while allowing good-faith contributors to work on the project and learn. I personally wouldn't support such a drastic step. — JFG ^talk 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on Talk:Stuart Kyle Duncan. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary "Also, please mind DS restrictions" ? [8] SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usual. Merry Christmas! — JFG ^talk 21:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snark edit summaries and WP:ASPERSIONS are disruptive. Put that in your stocking. There's no DS issue with a noted expert analysis in an external link. Try using talk next time. You'll get better results. SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read snark? You reverted a challenged edit, that's all. No big deal. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord have mercy. You are well aware that the Russian interference article does not have the "consensus" restriction. Doesn't wash. Fröhliche Weihnachten. EOM. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, K.e.coffman, let us all enjoy the holiday season with people we love, and even people we don't love so much. — JFG ^talk 00:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was made at 12:54, Dec 23. It restored BLP violating material that a single purpose brand new created throw away account started an edit war over. Discretionary sanctions were added to the article at 10:45 Dec 23, more than two hours prior to your edit. As such your edit is either an outright violation of the discretionary sanction OR it's a blatant attempt to game the restriction by "jumping in first". Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF much? — JFG ^talk 14:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Beautiful creature and creation, thanks Atsme, let us all enjoy the holidays! — JFG ^talk 00:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a merry Christmas and I hope you have a good day today and a happy new year. Thanks for working with me over the past year on the Top 25 Report. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchreiberBike, I love that report. — JFG ^talk 00:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Falcon 9 booster B1029 to Falcon 9 core B1029 and you reverted it, I explained why I moved it in the talk page and provided reasons for it such as they're referred to as cores on the list of falcon 9 launches AND by Spacex who manufactures and launches them YuriGagrin12 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so simple. Journalists sometimes call it a "booster", sometimes a "core", sometimes a "first stage", and our articles mostly use "booster" in various titles, e.g. List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. If you believe that "core" is the most-often-used wording, you would have to provide detailed sourcing to prove this, and obtain consensus to change the titles via the WP:move request process. Please read our policy on article titles; it's sometimes hard to choose when there is no obvious common name used in most sources. Hope this helps! — JFG ^talk 03:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Thank you, what I was talking about in the articles was in the list of falcon 9 launches it shows on the left Core№ so thats why I thought Could move it. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have also reverted the B1019 and B1021 titles, and left some explanations there. — JFG ^talk 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Thanks! Did you redirect those pages as well?

 Yes — JFG ^talk 04:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About this revision you recently made to 2017 in spaceflight : 'SS-520-4' is a code name for a specific flight, and not the name for the vehicle's configuration. Officially, there is only one configuration for SS-520, regardless of whether it has two or three stages. In fact, for the SS-520-4 flight, not just the satellite, but the third stage too can be considered as part of the rocket's payload, according to this article.

 「既存の2段式ロケットであるSS-520ロケットに、新規開発の第3段ロケットと超小型衛星からなるペイロードを搭載して、技術実証する」

It translates: conduct technology demonstration on a preexisting two stage rocket SS-520 by loading a payload consisting of a newly developed third stage and miniaturized satellite. In other words, the SS-520 was to 'launch' a rocket stage and a satellite.

If you want to clearly differentiate SS-520-4 and 5 from the other flights of the rocket, calling them SS-520 (three stage variant) is one solution. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hms1103: Many thanks for the clarification. We should definitely change the mention of "SS-520-4" in the infobox of 2017 in spaceflight: because of the English press coverage, I thought it was the maiden flight of the "-4" variant, but we should indeed call it the "three-stage" variant. Does this variant have a particular name in Japanese sources, or is it only described as "a two-stage SS-520 augmented with a third stage"? — JFG ^talk 23:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the SS-520 uses an S-520 sounding rocket for the first stage, among the space enthusiasts of Japan, a speculative SS-520-based orbital rocket was unofficially called 'SSS-520'. However, the so-called 'SSS-520' differs from SS-520-4 in that instead of adding a third stage on the top, it was theorized to have a new 'zero stage' under the usual SS-520. (An image of what the 'SSS-520' may have looked like) So I will advice against using this name to describe SS-520-4 and 5.

My understanding is that as JAXA has no intentions to serialize the three staged SS-520, they didn't invent a new name for it. Although technically indeed an orbital rocket, it can only reach orbits with extremely low altitude where satellites fall back to Earth within a year (for TRICOM-1, it was expected to remain operational for a month after launch), and it gives a rather rough ride to satellites (the maximum acceleration is 30G), only sturdy, tiny satellites can be launched for it. As there is little market demand for such a rocket (perhaps a few tech demonstration satellites), SS-520-4 was to be both the maiden and final launch for this variant. Only because of its botched flight was SS-520-5 conceived. On a side note, JAXA has encouraged private firms to use this project as a starting point of a commercial small-lift launch vehicle, and as a matter of fact a company was recently founded for exactly this purpose. But that will be a different story, as such an rocket will most likely be one size larger than SS-520-4.

Some Japanese media called SS-520-4 the telephone pole rocket (due to its size), but jokes aside I think the two versions of SS-520 can still be differentiated by context, as the SS-520 orbital rocket, and SS-520 sounding rocket. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you soon deliver the annual report's write-ups (after all, the only ones pending are your seven and Soulbust's for Stranger Things) igordebraga ≠ 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got a long train ride tomorrow; that should help me get my thoughts in shape. — JFG ^talk 01:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Melania entry was a good starter, hope the rest of those come up quickly (specially as the year is almost over!) igordebraga ≠ 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really, honestly think that the outcome of this launch is "unclear" when the payload is in the bottom of the Indian Ocean right now as confirmed by U.S. officials (who obviously can't be named in a secret satellite launch)? Why are there so many people trying to hide that the launch has been a total mission failure here and in other articles??? MaeseLeon (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "trying to hide" anything. We are faced with conflicting reports about the outcome of this mission, so that the WP:NPOV- and WP:V-compliant is to state the various comments made by officials at SpaceX, Northrop Grumman, and government representatives. Picking one source over the others is not encyclopedic. Hopefully, a clearer picture of the situation will emerge in the coming weeks. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, because I've just had an "edition battle" in other article with someone else who was trying to delete any reference to the ABC News article about the U.S. official (if logically unnamed) confirmation of the loss. And he's not the only one in the last days, in every SpaceX-related page there're people ready to jump in seconds when someone (not only me) just tries to write what's happened. I'm about to ask for page protection because there're clearly people with some kind of agenda here that I'm unaware of, but it's pretty obvious. Oh, and I'm not going to enter another "edition battle" with you, I'm getting tired, but saying that the outcome of this launch is unclear is false and disingenuous, the thing failed to separate and it's destroyed as reported and acknowledged by those U.S. sources, which is a total mission failure. MaeseLeon (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also requested page protection to calm down the edit-warring on 2018 in spaceflight, probably for the same reasons you did. I'm sure all editors are coming in good faith to report what they just read somewhere. Nobody has The Truth… — JFG ^talk 15:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boy am I glad that the FL review finished before this Zuma debacle... what a mess. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, great timing there! — JFG ^talk 23:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, should The List link failed attempts to change, in your opinion? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This may help prevent repeat arguments, and ease the burden of proof when discussing potential changes of consensus. However it would also make the consensus list heavier, and may be construed as excessive policing, or even WP:OWNership. On balance, I don't think it's worth bothering. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the move discussion I have begun at Ryan Wesley Bounds. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JocularJellyfish: That looks uncontroversial; I just moved the page and closed the RM. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Cheers! – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the comment you made in the Talk:Nunes memo to the RfC's threaded discussion. Feel free to revert if you preferred it the other way. ^Falling_Gravity 04:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: Thanks for the notice. I did revert, because my comments were made in response to a discussion thread at the bottom of the page; I only became aware of the RfC afterwards, and I commented there separately. — JFG ^talk 04:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening! I just wanted to give you a heads up about a contentious topic that doesn't seem to be going away, Supreme Court Justices and senior status --do we acknowledge it in Presidential tables (i.e. Judges appointed by (insert name)) tables or don't we? I did a ping earlier but I'm not sure if it worked. The relevant discussion is here. Feel free to add to the discussion. I'm just tired of the reverts and re-reverts and constant back and forth so I'm trying to reach a consensus. If there's any other editors you think would benefit from the discussion, please let them know. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. As now written, there is no consensus against Jane Doe below the lead. I don't see any really coherent way to combine the two consensuses, nor any reason to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Jane Doe case is part of the sexual misconduct allegations; I see no reason to single it out, now that we have a more general consensus. I see your point that Jane Doe should be excluded from the whole article, but keeping this mention in the very visible list of consensus may give it undue prominence and violate our own consensus not to mention it... I'd say let's unearth the old consensus if/when somebody tries to insert the Jane Doe case again. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that WP:DUE (and apparently WP:BLP) reasoning should apply to the list. The consensus is to omit it from the article, not the talk page, so it's hardly violated as you say. I will defer to you as a one-time exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:BLP does apply everywhere on Wikipedia, and a rape allegation on a minor is a rather serious matter. Thanks for your understanding. — JFG ^talk 08:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP would apply on the TP if not for the significant RS on the allegations, and I think you know that. There is no understanding, only concession. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. — JFG ^talk 08:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG. I would like to request that you restore the reference supporting the official designation of the SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) (Tesla) in the infobox - just temporarily. If you check the link to COSPAR, NASA only lists 9 spacecraft launched through February 2, 2018, so the Roaster is not listed yet. When listed, the reference can go. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've seen that, but if we add the ref tag, then COSPAR gets unlinked, and readers won't find out when the target site gets updated. Because the listed source is also used as reference several other times in the infobox and in the text, I think the loss of the link would outweigh the benefit of repeating the ref. — JFG ^talk 04:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

why is it frustrating for editors? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the code for archives drowns the visible text in edit mode. It's particularly awful for people editing from a mobile device on a small screen. — JFG ^talk 12:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks, but WP:Link rot encourages archiving - I think the links can't be rescued afterwards, unless they've been archived? Especially an article sourced mostly to media sources that are likely to become unavailale in a few years, preventing the loss of citation integrity is more important then the inconvenience it creates - I agree that it's annoying and I don't like cluttering the wikicode - but I don't see an alternative here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archive sites do their work independently. Yes, site archives can be recovered after the link dies, and that's the main task of the IABot. Just don't check the option that forces archiving of all links. — JFG ^talk 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is your move request local or is it moving through relative project teams for wider community input (like an RfC)? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Which move request are you talking about? — JFG ^talk 14:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Donald Trump. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The move request abides by the usual WP:Requested move process, which advises a minimum of 7 days of discussion, and automatically posts a notice to readers on the relevant article, in order to raise awareness. Some move requests can evolve into long-winded discussion, see for example Talk:New York (state)/Archive 5#Requested move 9 June 2016 which begot Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 June#New York (state), Talk:New York (state)/July 2016 move request, Talk:New York (state)/Archive 6#RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?, and finally Talk:New York#Requested move 7 July 2017 that concluded the debate a full year later! The particular RM I opened on the "racial views" article is definitely local to this article, and has no purpose to influence other areas of the encyclopedia. I don't understand what you mean exactly by "moving through relative project teams", but I did post a notice of the RM on Talk:Donald Trump, so that "regular" editors there could be aware of the discussion even if they don't watch the other article. Of course, any editor is welcome to participate. — JFG ^talk 16:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to notices of the discussion on relative project pages/noticeboards, sorta like the deletion sorting process we use at AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Year header, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Year header, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Year header and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches/Year header during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...there is an entire article that was built on the same premise for what some are now claiming is OR regarding your proposal. Selecting a relevant quote that was published in a secondary source is indeed acceptable and compliant with our PAGs. WP:OR clearly states: sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. It is not OR, it is NPOV as it will be in-text attribution...and it was published in a secondary source. There is absolutely no valid reason it can't be used...^{Atsme📞📧} 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ay, come on, this is obviously restoring challenged edits without consensus - which is a violation of the discretionary sanction. Please undue it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]