User talk:Nimbus227

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit]

Hi Nimbus227, I notice you have made a few additions to the article about the Bristol Hercules engine. I have just written a brief article about Banner Lane which in WWII was a Coventry shadow factory run by Standard Motor Company and during the war the Hercules was its principal product, possibly even the sole product. It is not apparent its a new article because I changed what was a redirect from something (I think) insignificant but I left a hatnote for those who might object. Postwar Banner Lane became the plant that made all those Ferguson and Massey Ferguson tractors.

Please would you be able to look at the article to fix my mistakes about the Hercules and of course anything else you might like to correct / amend / expand?

Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I visited that area of Coventry late last year and will be visiting again next week. My only thought was if they made aircraft how did they fly them out? Perhaps they were road transported in major assemblies and test flown somewhere else? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the aircraft made / assembled at Canley were trucked to a nearby airfield. My quoted authority is unclear about aircraft at Banner Lane. Another authority says Banner Lane was devoted to the Hercules and so I have deleted reference to it in the Banner Lane article. Many thanks for your help. Eddaido (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons templates[edit]

Interesting - I was always given to understand that the template should not be used on its own, even though it's coded to be useful that way, but that it should definitely link to a particular named category. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 07:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

R-R Merlin "Engines on Display" Comment[edit]

I've taken the huge liberty of slashing and burning the list, keeping only those museums that provide direct confirmation that Merlins are roosting on public display. Hopefully, people will think more carefully before adding museums rumoured to have Merlins, or museums that don't have Merlins at all, but deserve to be listed because they are aerospace museums...Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 22:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a liberty, it needed doing. I simplified the lead in sentence as it contained word repetition, also removed the note about aircraft with Merlins as the header is quite clear and we don't usually have a problem with this. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 03:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Lockheed XF-104[edit]

Hello ! I'm contributor of the French Wikipedia and I'm translating the article Lockheed XF-104. I found contradictory informations in the part 3.2 "Crashes". The article mentiones "after accumulating over 1,000 flying hours" about the second aircraft. However, in the same paragraph, it's mentioned that both aircrafts amassed a total of only 250 flight hours (diff). Please, could you check the reference about the "1 000 flying hours". Thanks. AviaWiki (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will look in to that for you, great that you are translating. In the original article that I submitted no flying hours were mentioned, it may be a mistake that I have introduced later. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The figure of 1,000 hours for the second prototype is supported by several sources including the one cited. I do not have the source used when the 250 hour value was added by an another user but found reference to 250 hours being flown between the two XF-104s at the time the first YF-104A flew (February 1956, the second XF-104 crashed in July 1957), this may be a mis-read of the source and where the contradiction has appeared. For the translation I would omit the 250 hour figure. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Walter Mars[edit]

Evening Nimbus, A while ago you started an article on this engine, described as a 14-cylinder radial. Winding my way through French mags of the '30s, I came across a Lithuanian aircraft (the ANBO III, ref in article) powered by a Mars, carefully described as a 9-cylinder, 145 hp radial. Some poking around in Flight turned up this description of what they called the Mars I. As an engine man, do you understand the relationship?TSRL (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I remember having trouble identifying the undescribed photos from Commons! A bell has just rung that there is another engine called 'Mars', it's mentioned in the infobox at Gnome-Rhône 14M, certainly appears that the Walter Mars is a licensed-built version of the same engine. I guess my source (Gunston) didn't mention that. I'm getting an Error 404 on the Flight link, might be down for maintenance, I'll have a peek in the morning. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The other 'Mars' engine is most likely the Walter NZ 120 which is nine-cylinder and about the right power output and timeframe. Just need to find a ref that it was also called Mars. It would be good to unravel the naming conventions, Gnome Rhone seem to use the Bristol planets/moons names except for the Mistral Major (Mistral, French wind) and Walter use stars and planets. It's all good fun anyway. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Flight is working for me now, 25 July 1929 (tried to link but the Flight address spaces break wikilinks) shows a Walter Mars. It may be an engine that has not been covered yet. It looks very similar to the Walter NZ 120 but it has rocker covers and the pushrods converge toward toward the cylinder head instead of being parallel on the NZ 120. It might be an increased bore variant or development being 10 hp more. Just need a Walter engines book for Christmas! Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Depending on exactly where you copy Flight urls from, you sometimes get spaces, which need replacing with %20.TSRL (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
More problems! Looking at the application list at Walter Mars only the Messerschmitt M 18 used the engine described in the article, all the other aircraft types used the much smaller engine. We need a new Walter Mars I article and hatnotes to disambiguate. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The only other ref used in the ANBO III article, the less reliable-lookingthis one, gives the engine as a Walther 120 AG. Is that different (again) from NZ 120? These old engines are more of a nightmare than the aircraft; so many models and inconsistent notations, coupled with contemporary journos who wrote about "the 120 hp Salmson" etc. Everyone knew the engine they meant, then. Anyway, thanks for your efforts! Cheers,TSRL (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I tried the %20 bodge but must have got it wrong somehow. Noticed that I commented at Talk:Walter Mars in 2012 that there was another engine with the same name. For now I ought to remove the aircraft types that very obviously didn't use the 14-cylinder engine. Not heard of a 120 AG, more digging. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I rashly took the hint and began a rough draft of Mars I in my sandbox, entering Flight's (works now) 105 mm × 120 mm; then went to the French ref, to find 155 mm × 170 mm!TSRL (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Oops, that should be 135 mm × 170 mm; nonetheless, that would be over 18 l - for 150 hp?TSRL (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Great, another article is needed. I have been redlinking the engine type in the applications as Walter Mars I. The aircraft application list could be taken direct from Walter Mars. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I would stick with the Flight figure of 120 mm, it could be a historic typo in the French article (120/170?). The Walter Castor had a 170 mm stroke but also a larger bore. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you happy for me to assist in your sandbox? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I'll probably drop the French ref. There are some pics here.TSRL (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Great. We have that museum as a category on Commons but only five engine images in it at the moment, probably won't be able to upload his Flickr images as he has some rights reserved ticked, will have another look. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks like his images are uploadable according to the CC 2.0 license, will have a look at the Flickr upload bot. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
The images appeared from the license wording to be uploadable but the Commons Flickr guide page says not. The article looks good to go to me. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Done: and thanks.TSRL (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Good stuff, we should do that again. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Be a pleasure. Next time I'll try not to bungle the move! It's OK now but I lost the edit trail in the process. I was thinking about the US election an trying to finish the X-word - must pay attention!. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I did spot a slight mishap! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed that on 21/11 you nulled the Cats. Why was that - it's probably obvious but I am a bit puzzled! Cheers.TSRL (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Any categories on user pages and sandboxes will appear in the category, probably not a WP rule about it but it looks quite untidy or odd. If I'm adding categories to a sandbox article I break the formatting (miss off a bracket) so they don't appear, correcting them as the page goes live. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I think WP:USERNOCAT is the guidance. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 12:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I'd forgotten it was a redirct from a redundant user page. An admin has moved now so I'll remove the colons. No I won't: you've done it. Ta again!TSRL (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I saw it pop up as a new article created yesterday which was odd then I saw an admin was trying to sort it out. I recycle the same sandbox for new articles, clicking on the red link created from a search and filling with the content. Afterwards I blank the sandbox ready for the next one. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm usually quite well organised, with an established routine for clearing up after upload. But I got Trumped (as will a lot more folk in the next 4 years) and forgot to delete user: from the title, generating a user:xxxx article, with redirects, outside my sandbox. At that point I went for cut and paste and was unsure about cleaning up the remnants. Concentrate!TSRL (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota[edit]

Hello Nimbus227,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I notice you are active in activities related to project page and project talk page, so I wonder if I could invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,

Bowen

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nimbus227. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nimbus227. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

Cheers Bill, all the best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Better 2017?[edit]

Happy New Year, Nimbus227![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

)

Rolls-Royce Limited[edit]

Hi Nimbus227. I wonder if you might please help me. I am revising the above article and while I am comfortable about things to do with the cars I know nothing much useful about aero-engines and aircraft. The kind of problem I have is e.g. this quote from the Daily Telegraph of 30 April 1987. "It is a business where expensive research and development is vital and whose customers - the airframe makers - are few in number. Contracts are very large and very competitive. Each generation costs around 10 times as much as its parent to develop. Profits from the development peak as much as 20 years later." My questions to you:

  1. How many major airframe makers survive?
  2. Most of them disappeared in the 1950s and 1960s - is that a fair statement?
  3. Do all these other claims in the quote remain fair comments (after 30 years)

Please would you keep a watching brief (or more) on the article and fix me where I make mistakes. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and asking my opinion, I'm not an expert on Rolls-Royce history but do feel that I can comment generally as a fairly experienced Wikipedia editor. As I don't edit the article my comments shouldn't cause any ruffled feathers. The article is in a poor state and has been for a long time. To me company articles should focus on the history, key personnel (Ernest Hives isn't even mentioned), manufacturing locations and buildings etc. This article concentrates far too much on the products (cars), particularly the number of images and galleries crammed into it, the products should of course be mentioned but in a balanced way. I complained on the talk page in 2009 (top entry) about this (no response) and also contacted the article creator to see if they had any thoughts, also no response.
A large article like this should use summary style, a fairly good example of this is World War II where main sections have a dedicated article (linked immediately after the header text). Rolls-Royce aircraft piston engines is the only split article, a gas turbine article summary article could easily be written. There is a very pressing need for a split article on the cars (Rolls-Royce Motor Cars only covers the company formed in 1998, the cars could be fully, clearly and fairly treated in their own summary style article). It's not clear in the lead section that the scope of this article is up to 1987 only, I guess editors are confused and is probably why an image of the modern Trent engine had to be (rightly) removed by yourself. There is a hatnote but it doesn't mention any timeframes, editors seem to miss these notes anyway.
On airframe makers (presumably British?) there was a government drive to rationalise all the companies, a comparison of Category:Aircraft manufacturers of the United Kingdom and Category:Defunct aircraft manufacturers of the United Kingdom is interesting. The Telegraph quote is true enough I suppose, many companies ceased trading after ploughing their own money into unsuccessful aircraft types, a business gamble they had to take.
I would be willing to help with a split article on the gas turbines, the main article needs someone to be bold to improve it. The article is using a mixed style of templated and non-templated citations (WP:CITEVAR) which would need fixing to progress up the article quality scale. Cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all that. Hives is listed among the key people and there is a biography too but I haven't seen it for a long time. I suspect Rolls-Royce (I mean the subject of the article as a subject for a WP article) is too big and too complicated. It has a much better article than other near equivalents (if only because it attracts pretty pictures of items of conspicuous consumption and their international fame). I'm really only interested in removing gross mistakes (of omission too). I'm simply uninterested in my number of edits as compared with others or fine-writing for WP or manuals of style or whatever so when I'm done I'd be glad if you would take the new reliable framework and mould it with your own experienced hands — to a good article if you like.
I asked for your thoughts because if you take statements out of context you run the risk of making a fool of yourself. I'd hoped you would have already had an opinion on the quantities and types of airframe businesses still going in 1960. I think there weren't many so I will put in a comment as per the Daily Telegraph but won't be too startled if an aviation expert turns up to show me wrong. Could you point me to another editor who might know? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I've done my dash on this pair of articles, at least for the moment. I'd welcome your thoughts / criticism. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RRCondor.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RRCondor.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Haacke-3[edit]

Evening Nimbus, Prompted by your comment, I've been digging out some Haacke HFM-2 aps. Our engines list says the Haacke HFM-3 was a 3-cyl radial, which sounds right; but then I found (File:Haacke HFM 3.jpg) this. Mis-i/d by Deutsche Mus? Or have we got it wrong? If the latter, some of the HFM-2 aps might have used the HFM-3. Thoughts, refs? Cheers,TSRL (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Evening! I'm afraid there are many errors in the engine list, I have recently had an engine image file moved to an incorrect title by the same editor who populates the engine list. I saw the museum image of the twin HFM-3 and would hope that the museum have it correct (description is readable on the placard).
Afraid I don't have anything at all on the Haacke range, there is a five cylinder radial also I think. No idea at all how the designation system worked, was there an HFM-1 for instance?! Will keep searching, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The Flight article mentions 5 types: 35 hp 3-cyl fan; 60 hp 5-cyl radial; 120 hp 10-cyl radial; and the two flat twins discussed in detail. Since it was the 1920s, they give no type numbers. The fan engine was used to power something but just for the moment I can'1 recall what. I did wonder if the HFM-2a = HMFM-3 but the cylinder heads are different. I'll keep looking.TSRL (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Another fan] or just vague power calibration?TSRL (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the 2a and 3 side-by side does show different cylinders; the caption talks of the installation of Le Rhone heads and perhaps that's the root of the difference. Would you recognise a Le Rhone?TSRL (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I read the museum placard about the non-original cylinders, they do look like Le Rhone to me. It's odd that there are very few references to what seemed to be a reasonably large range of engines, it's possible that there is a German language book somewhere. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Blower in the wind[edit]

I've seen the "fully" & "partially" supercharged elsewhere, so if you know of pages where it's not explained, adding the same note as on the Jag page would be a good idea. Thx for the add. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Nimbus227. 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)

A Barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For all your great work with Franklin Engines! Sario528 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, thanks very much! Still a few to go and some organising, we are very short of pictures for the articles. I have a couple of photos of a Franklin engine but I don't know what type it is exactly! Thanks again and cheers.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I second that nom, great work! Credit well earned. - Ahunt (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Cheers and happy holidays! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Bill, all the best. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Franklin designations[edit]

(Note: The O- style designation is fictional, used to easily navigate the Franklin designation system. Where there is a military version the O- type designation could be used correctly)[1]

By the authors own admission he fabricated the O- designations ( except where there was a military version)!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

AEHS is not a reliable source (WP:SPS). You are applying this note (which is editorial comment) in error to engines that clearly had a military designation and use. Please stop, if you have problems then discuss them at WT:AETF. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Franklin1". www.enginehistory.org. Retrieved 26 December 2017. 

Your signature[edit]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] [[User talk:Nimbus227|<font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)</font></font></font>]] : Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

to

[[User:Nimbus227|Nimbus]] [[User talk:Nimbus227|<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <span style="color:#708090;">nimbus <span style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)</span></span></span>]] : Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

Anomalocaris (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

HOAE[edit]

The source WAS self-published, but is NOW published by the AEHS, so your argument falls flat on it's face. The web pages in question also quote numerous reliable source (without in-line citations). --Petebutt (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Pete, did you miss the comment where it said that AEHS is not a RS? - The Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. The engine task force has reviewed and discussed many reference sources (the discussions can be found through the search archive feature of WT:AETF). As blue links in my edit summaries and talk page comments don't appear to be followed and read I am reproducing the section on self-published sources from Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Engines/Reference sources below:

Self-published sources[edit]

A number of user generated personal websites and websites of societies exist on the Internet. They do not currently meet the policy requirement of Wikipedia:Verifiability and should not be used as sources in articles.

AEHS is the second entry. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sig fix[edit]

Could you please take a moment to update your signature code to use 21st-century HTML? It is presently:

<font style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <font style="color:#708090;">nimbus <font style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)</font></font></font>
(Cumulus nimbus floats by)

and should be:

<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus <span style="color:#708090;">nimbus <span style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)</span></span></span>
(Cumulus nimbus floats by)

For verisimilitude you might actually want to move the closing tags (output looks the same but the code makes more sense and is more likely to display consistently across all browsers):

<span style="color:#2F4F4F;">(Cumulus</span> <span style="color:#708090;">nimbus</span> <span style="color:#D3D3D3;">floats by)</span>
(Cumulus nimbus floats by)

The <font> element hasn't been valid in HTML in many years. Continuing to use it on Wikipedia will make any page in which it's used fail validation, and it adds a tremendous number of pages to our "lint" cleanup lists, plus has the effect of displaying lots of errors to those of us who are using JS to flag pages with invalid markup in them for cleanup (we only need to do the cleanup in actual articles and major projectpages, but there is no way to limit the error-reporting to just those pages).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)