User talk:JFG

Archives

Falcon 9 booster B1029 DYK nomination

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]

Word

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]

Trump SNL

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]

Forbes

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]

A Barnstar for you!

		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. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Information about the requested moves

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]

FYI

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]

RM nacs

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]

DYK for Falcon 9 booster B1029

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]

sources-talk

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]

Ahem....

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]

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Trump Impeachment: Declaratory Judgements

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]

Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump timeline

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]

Links in #23

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]

Prince Albert

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]

A barnstar for you!

	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]

Humor in the political talk pages

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]

References

^ @realDonaldTrump (2 July 2017). "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!" (Tweet). Retrieved 30 August 2017 – via Twitter.

@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]

Carrier rockets

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]

an help for Sabrina Ferilli

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]

About H3 rocket

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]

Sources
^ "Zvezda Service Module". Khrunichev. Retrieved 11 June 2017.

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]

Undid missile merges

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]

Archived RfC close

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]

[1] @realDonaldTrump (2 July 2017). "My use of social media is not Presidential - it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL. Make America Great Again!" (Tweet). Retrieved 30 August 2017 – via Twitter.

[khrunichev-zvezda-2] "Zvezda Service Module". Khrunichev. Retrieved 11 June 2017.

[1]

[1]