User talk:BilCat

NOT RETIRED

This user is somewhat active on Wikipedia, and limits his activities to a small range of pages and mostly non-contentious discussions. There may be periods in which the user is not active due to life issues.

Unified login: BilCat is the unique login of this user for all public Wikimedia projects.

Move Langley Field to Langley Air Force Base

Hey BilCat, I need some help. I'm trying to move Langley Field to Langley Air Force Base, which has been proposed by an unregistered user, but Langley Air Force Base already exists as a redirect page with its separate talk page. How should I do this to ensure that all data is preserved? thanks! Garuda28 (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Admins and page movers (I am a Page Mover) can more the page, but I'd rather get a consensus first. The best way is to hold a move discussion per WP:RM#CM. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

every sentence ref vs overcite

I try to have a citation for every sentence since a sentence unsupported can be challenged by another editor, or another differently supported sentence can be introduced in between. To avoid overcite I try to make long sentences supported only once but they're often cumbersome. Supporting a whole paragraph is ok when there is only 1 author, but on wikipedia... It's currently discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill#Citations--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You had two sentences run together with no period, which was partly why I rewrote it. Technically, the Lead shouldn't need citations, as it isn't supposed to introduce new material. In a small article like that one, however, it's probably fine for now, but does need to be addressed eventually. While I understand your point about more than one author, it isn't policy yet to cite every sentence, even with hidden notes. That is unnecessary clutter in my opinion, but ultimately the wonks will decide on that. They always do, even if it makes things more difficult on the rest of us. - BilCat (talk)

Works on paper, not in a wiki. A lead is when a summary is needed for a long article, in Citation Mustang it's just the second paragraph of five. Hidden notes are currently permitted. If it enhance verifiability, it's better.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A Baby-vs-Bathwater question

The AK, plain-ol'-no-M alias AK47 seems to keep leaving the article, possibly because the usual suspect seems to make some changes to accurate stuff along with the junk. Is there anything else getting caught in the crossfire here? Anmccaff (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I've glanced at the AK-47's history, but I'm not sure who you mean. Is it the Italian pork meat, or another user? If not, can you give me a diff? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A318

I see that you have reverted my edit where I inserted "Airbus" into the title of the infobox so that it read "Airbus A318". Now it reads "A318".

I looked at other articles and featured articles 747, 757, 767, all show the form like "Boeing 747" or "Boeing 767". However, Airbus articles simply show "A300", "A380", etc. I didn't see where Wikipedia doesn't want "Airbus". Please explain. I want to know the best answer, not just insist on my way. Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Vanguard10: I did give the answer in my edit summary, but I'll explain it here for you: Per WP:AIR/SG#Introduction, under Infobox in that section:

For the most part, as there is an appropriate field in the infobox itself, including the manufacturer in the "name" field is not necessary. Some exceptions exist, such as aircraft which only have model numbers.

Thus the reason that "Boeing" is used, and Airbus is not, is that A318 starts with the letter "A", but 737 only has a number. The majority of aircraft on Wikipedia have designations that start with a letter, especially military designations, or with a name. Boeing is the exception (the British/European tendency to call them the B-737, etc. notwithstanding, as that isn't the company's own style). You're not the first person to see this as an inconsistency, but thanks for asking before reverting. - BilCat (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's kinda interesting you mention that, because in GATES, an Air Force system used for handling cargo and passengers on AMC aircraft, they've always had Boeing planes listed with B747, B767, etc. I never really thought anything of it before, but I wonder if their system requires a letter for the aircraft type. Thanks for the information! --Bassmadrigal (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've seen the B7x7 and B-7x7 formats in American sources too, but generally it's just the 7x7 format. - BilCat (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative explanation! It suits me fine. However, it is not crystal clear. For example, it doesn't prohibit use of the manufacturer, such as "Airbus A380". Furthermore, the model number of the A380 is "A380". True, there is a letter but "A380" is still a model number, not a name. In addition, use of the manufacturer's name is common. "This is an Airbus A380". With cars, people say "Honda Accord" just as they do "BMW 530i".

The really big exception is Concorde. People say just the model name, "Concorde", not BAC Sud Concorde or BAe Aerospatiale Concorde.

With military aircraft, the manufacturer's name is less common. "JAS39 Gripen" or "F-22" is more common than "Saab JAS39 Gripen" or "Lockheed F-22". Vanguard10 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That guideline actually precedes my time on Wikipedia (over 10 years), but I have had enough discussions about it that what I told you is how it means. As it's written, it doesn't make an exception for A3xx. The only exception is for numbers (read as "numerals" if that makes it more clear to you). You're welcome to bring those points up on the guideline's talk page, and see if you can build a consensus to change or modify the guideline. It's been long enough now since that was written that you may well get it changed. - BilCat (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I plan to leave it alone for now. Maybe in the future, I might discuss it but, for now, I will assume it's a fairly esoteric point. Thank you for your explanation Vanguard10 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

GE9X spit from GE90 page

I have open an discussion about GE9X as seprate article I agree that we should put GE9X as split article please feel free to comments here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:General_Electric_GE90#Split_GE9X_as_separate_article_instead_of_one_chapter_as_GE90

--Aaa830 (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

AR-15 page

I think a made a mistake. What I'm trying to do is turn the AR-15 page into a redirect to the Colt AR-15 page and add the info on this page to the AR-15 (disambiguation) page. It was working perfectly. But, you reverted it, calling it a "cut and paste" and left a note and instructions on my talk page. I followed them and now it seems as if I want to rename the AR-15 page "Colt AR-15" and delete the Colt AR-15 page. Which is not what I want to do at all. I don't know how to fix this.--Limpscash (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I had an archive misfire. Posts on the current talk page would be archived to the old name. This removal was posted here. I corrected the auto-archiving to work for the current setup with this. My actions should not be conceived as an endorsement in the move discussion, I'm only trying to get things to work at the present. I'm going to step back and let editors sort this out. Move archived threads as needed. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Douglas A2D Skyshark

I photographed the last surviving Skyshark which is (or at least when I photographed it) at the San Diego Air & Space Museum annex. I uploaded many of them. Any worth adding to the page? I noticed that you have edited it a number of times. So, I thought I would ask you rather than tooting my own horn. c:Category:Douglas A2D Skyshark at the San Diego Air & Space Museum Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page passer-by: That image could be added to the Museum page, which seems to have plenty of room for it, while the Skyshark page does not. Just a thought. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up,

Was trying to find a draft of the film, glad there's already one in place. Will continue to add to that particular draft as you suggested. Also, for every guideline to articles, where do I find a specific guideline? RegardsAlroy656 (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Alroy656

Orphaned non-free image File:Piasecki 16h-1A-1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Piasecki 16h-1A-1.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. --B-bot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Piasecki 16h1-a.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Piasecki 16h1-a.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. --B-bot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding edit to Boeing 707 article

Hi, should the caption be changed from "Former Qantas 707-138B owned by John Travolta at the 2007 Paris Air Show" to "Former Qantas 707-138B at the time owned by John Travolta at the 2007 Paris Air Show" ? Thanks, trainsandtech (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen a reliable published source about this. Also, it's better to state "then-owner". - BilCat (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will add "then-owner" to the caption. Also, you can find the statement about the plane's donation on the news section of John Travolta's website. trainsandtech (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Canberra-class landing helicopter dock

Hi Bill, There was quite a lot of debate over the decision to acquire the Canberra class ships in the 2000s. For instance, and from memory, the opposition Labor Party advocated for purchasing four smaller LPDs. Hugh White, who's a major figure in Australian defence debates (former deputy secretary of the Department of Defence and now a leading academic and commentator) has always been sceptical of their value. This debate has largely dried up since the ships were ordered, but remains worth covering. I've added a little bit of historical material to provide context to White's views and will look to expand this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand, but some concerns remain. For one, the section heading is a bit grandiose (and in title case - I prefer that personally, but the MOS wonks don't, so that's what we use) and too obtuse. Further, controversy/criticism sections aren't recommended per WP:UNDUE and other guidelines. I'm not quite sure how best to integrate it into the rest of the article, but perhaps you can figure it out, along with some sourced way of indicating the criticism has "largely dried up". - BilCat (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point: I've merged this into the 'Planning and selection' section. I'll look to flesh this out a bit, as it's a significant part of the ships' history (for instance, White has argued that the entire concept behind the ships is mistaken given that there are few situations in which landing only a single battalion quickly from LHDs is a good idea - as such a force will either be inadequate in a major war or overkill in the lower-level contingencies which the Australian military is much more likely to undertake). Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and for helping with the well-meaning IP also. Hopefully it won't require extreme measures to stop. - BilCat (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I mean! They're just coming off the longest in a series of blocks. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

There's some silly commentary in the Australian media at the moment about the ships being lemons due to the fault with their propulsion system. The Navy and various experts are pointing out that this kind of issue is common in new ships, and it appears to have been caused by mistakes in operating the propulsion pods (wrong kinds of lubricating oils, etc). Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of be a sockpuppet.

Look, you cannot call someone a sockpuppet just because they have a similar username to one. My friend is a sockpuppet and I just kindly requesting to admins to bring him back. So don't call me an obvious sock, because I am not.