User talk:Huntster

	1			2		3			4		5
edit purge view		Low to moderate level of vandalism					3.68 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 23:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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)