User talk:Ahunt/Archive36

Editing Wikipedia is dangerous!

One small edit can turn into a project! See Draft:Grumman Sto-Wing. BilCat (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, nice work there. That one looks ready for "prime time". Sorry for the slow response, our internet connection was "down" since Friday afternoon. Just catching up here now. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's mainly a collection of text from the articles listed in the history. It needs a good rewrite for context and flow. I'm still trolling the internet for a good "in-depth" source to firmly establish notability, but I think the ASME sources will do that well enough if needed. I did notice you were away since Friday afternoon, and am glad to hear it was nothing more serious than an outage. BilCat (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was here, just reading books.... - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we never realizes how much of our lives depend on the internet until it goes out! Some people even have internet-connected appliances! BilCat (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL, our old fridge kept working. Fortunately I have a lot of books here to read. - Ahunt (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good that the books were kept cold then. BilCat (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL, at this time of year here in Canada everything is cold!! - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so you keep the books in the fridge to keep them from freezing. That makes sense. ;) BilCat (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes but we microwave them before reading of course! - Ahunt (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

That's one way to get a hot read! BilCat (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Winters can be "character building" in Canada. - Ahunt (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL. And I can't believe some Jamaicans voluntarily move to Canada. After several years growing up in Jamaica, I find even the mild winters down South intolerable! BilCat (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't trade it. This was me today. - Ahunt (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Snow's pretty to look at, but that's where I draw the line. BilCat (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

We skied 21 km today! - Ahunt (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow! BilCat (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that is a long way for us old people. Took four hours of skiing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Double wow. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Ottawa is a good city to try to stay fit in! - Ahunt (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be sure to avoid it in Winter if I ever make it across the border. Not that I have plans to at this stage in my life, but one never knows. BilCat (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Unintended" but completely foreseeable consequences

Do you get the feeling that the WMF doesn't really have a lot of people in charge with "real life experiences"? They make it easier for users to post on talk pages, and so we get tons of edits like this. Seriously, Wikipedia is ripe for someone to knock them off, if they'll just learn from the mistakes that the WMF refuses to learn from. BilCat (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Weird and that was a US-based IP as well! - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons category renaming

Hi Adam, do you know anything about renaming categories on Commons? c:Category:Sikorsky VH-92 need to be renamed to "Sikorsky VH-92 Patriot". Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Very little on Commons makes any sense these days. It is amazing anyone can find anything there: c:Category:Aircraft numbered 92 - Ahunt (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No kidding! I take it the answer is "no" then. BilCat (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Even worse: c:Template:Move. Clear as mud! BilCat (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL. - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

An edit to look in on

Hi Ahunt, I would appreciate your perspective on this edit. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed it as little direct connection to the subject and basically an WP:EASTEREGG. - Ahunt (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You deserve this! :) Riverbend21 (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Riverbend21: well thank you very much. If you tell me what it was I did to deserve this I may just do it again! - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the excess baggage at Sail plan

Hi ThoughtIdRetired, Thank you for your patient and scholarly work in the field of sailing craft.

See if you agree that the Sail plan article is ungainly. You may wish to weigh in at a discussion that I've started at Talk:Sail plan#Excess baggage. Note there was also a discussion about renaming the article at Talk:Sail plan#Article start/name. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to respond?

I sure don't! See here. BilCat (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Seems to be arguing both sides to me! - Ahunt (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup. Anyway, without a source, it had to be removed. Since they didn't cite one there, it's just unsubstantiated opinion. Your term in the edit summary was more colorful though! BilCat (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sometimes I omit the filters, especially when someone seems to have an WP:AXE. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Totally understandable, as confirmed by their reply on the talk page. BilCat (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Mmm, that was what I was referring to. Not sure which side they are arguing there. - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Emotionalism has no sides! BilCat (talk) 01:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Or at least all sides are equal, gotta love postmodernism... - Ahunt (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

All sides may be equal, but some are more equal than others, apparently. Otherwise, why post it at all. BilCat (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well that the problem with postmodernism - nothing to discuss. - Ahunt (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

So true! BilCat (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Their claim of "aviator" being outdated would meet with vehement opposition from a certain community! They proudly claim they are not merely "pilots". You may have run into a few back in the day. BilCat (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That is quite true, too. We wont even get into the Canadian Armed Forces new misuse of the term as a rank for non-flyers. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I forgot about that one! BilCat (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We'll just categorize that as a linguistic aberration. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

All in the pursuit of non-gender terms. Personally Perbeingly, I pushing for "perbeing" to replace "person", as not everyone is a "son"! BilCat (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that was a linguistic fail. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I like illustrating absurdity by being more absurd. Unfortunately, extreme absurdity is totally normal in postmodernism, and it will probably catch on! BilCat (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't parody parody, whether it is intentional or otherwise! - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

You do have a point! BilCat (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL, well I am glad you think so! - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

747

Hello Ahunt,

You reverted my edit on 747. I don't really agree with it being WP:OR. It would be WP:TRIVIA in itself, were it not that it is in the section Cultural impact, and an illustration thereof. I do however see it was poorly written (quickly done on my cellphone).

Would you think it was more acceptable within the section Cultural impact if I rewrote it as:

"The number 747 has been used as a reference towards airports and flying. Several airports have a bus line numbered 747, such as Montréal, Edmonton, and Edinburgh. Serveral airlines have a telephone number with 747, such as KLM's 020-4 747 747 or Air New Zealand's 0800-767 747."

IIVQ (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC) IIVQ (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Hi, thanks for your note here. You should really take this to the article talk page so other editors can participate in the discussion. That said, the short answer is "no". Your paragraph above still has poor grammar (a reference towards airports and flying.) and it is still not properly sourced. None of your refs tie these phone numbers and other stuff to the aircraft, that connection is still WP:OR. The whole thing is also still trivia. It is notable that my reversion of your edit resulted in a quite a number of "thanks" to me for removing that, so it seems other editors are opposed as well. I would suggest if you insist on pursuing this you start a discussion at Talk:Boeing 747 and lay out your case there, but you will need refs that actually say something like "our company phone number is easy to remember because it is named after the Boeing 747". - Ahunt (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey. I don't necessarily disagree with you, except for two things: The not being properly sourced and this being WP:OR. You have a very strict definition of OR here. Certain statements that are very common in "cultural impact" sections will never have a "source saying this is referenced for this and that reason", such as "... is one of the most widely depicted civilian aircraft" or " the 747 rapidly achieved iconic status". Also: "the whole thing is still trivia" - you fail to see that objects/services numbered 747 in relation to flying are not trivia as part of the cultural impact section.

Also, I find your tone of voice not very welcoming. On the Dutch Wikipedia, if someone reverts, it is common practice to take this up on the talk page of the reverting user, not on the article talk page. I wasn't aware of a different way of doing so here, but I'll do that in the future.

Your reference to the number of thanks you got (which I can not check: the thanks log does not show what you got a thank for), should, per Help:Notifications/Thanks#What the feature is not, not be taken as a stamp of approval or as public endorsement of the edit.

I will not pursue adding this information anymore, not because I don't think it should be included, but because I don't feel welcome editing this page because of your hostile approach. Thanks for your time. IIVQ (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Sailing rigs

Hello, Ahunt,

I hope you are well. Regarding this article, please, when you do a page move with an article, or when you correct a bad page move, leave behind a redirect if there are redirects to the article at its previous page title. You can check this by look at "What links here". If there are redirects to an article and you leave a redirect when you move a page, then our helpful bots can correct the double redirects and have them point to the correct, new page title. If you don't leave a redirect behind, then those valid redirects become broken and they are likely to be deleted by a patrolling admin or one of those bots (see User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects for the broken redirects). Alternatively, after you move a page you can go and correct all of the broken redirects yourself but it is easier to let the bots handle this chore.

With newer articles, broken redirects are not so big a concern as they are unlikely to have redirects pointing to the article. But this article is over 20 years old and older articles are likely to have redirects that have been created over the years to point to them as a target. Thanks for the page move and for all of your contributions to the project! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here and for turning Sail plan into a redirect. The fate of that page is under discussion at Talk:Sailing_rigs#Proposed_move_to_"Sailing_rigs", as it may end up as a completely new, fresh article, but we can live with it as a redirect for now. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: You can note that Sail plan has now been turned into a new article by another editor. - Ahunt (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 1722

You claim it is not notable, etc. If this is the case then should we add notability tag to all these pages here ??? There are dozens more United Airlines incident pages. Shinadamina (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, just this one. It is not the airline, it is the fact that the incident was a non-event: no injuries, no damage, the FAA closed the case with no action and the NTSB is not even investigating. If you like you can join in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#United_Airlines_Flight_1722, - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I have responded there. Shinadamina (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk page for Sail plan article

Ahunt, Sail plan was made a redirect to Sailing rigs by another editor, because so many other articles linked to it. I substituted an article for the redirect. However, Talk:Sail plan still redirects to Talk:Sailing rigs. Can you give it its own Talk page? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Never mind. I figured it out! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

LOL, looks like you got it done. I added a few enhancements. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Problem with assessment for 2005 Loganair Islander Accident

Hi! Way back in January of 2016 you assessed the 2005 Loganair Islander accident as class B, which is still shown on the talk page, yet I see now on the article page it's shown as a start class article, which is also in the tag on the talk page. I just noticed this today because these classes are now appearing right under the title on the article page. Since I was the creator and main editor I don't think I should change the assessment tag myself. Would you mind having a look please? I'm not asking for a promotion, just a class-B on the main page to match the talk page. Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dcs002: I have adjusted and updated the talk page templates. Hopefully that should do it! - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks muchly! Dcs002 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Good Job!

I see you have made many good edits, so keep up the good work!

BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Glad you think that was helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good Job! BananaBreadPie12 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we all did some good work there on Boeing 747. - Ahunt (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Need help changing a category

Hello Ahunt,

I need some help with changing the name of a category I created because I cannot find the move/rename option myself(with normal articles you just click move under the option more, but I don't see that here). I created the category Category:Submarine Service, however, it should be named Category:Submarine services. Since you moved a category I named mistakenly some time ago (see my talk page) I thought it would be best to turn to you for help with this. SailingthroughHistory (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem:  Done. I have not left a redirect at the old name, but did change the cat on the one article that had that cat. Let me know if I can do anything else. - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of MPP for the 44th OntLA

I have noticed that you undid my edit on the 44th Ontario general election. I do agree that it's not well-written. However, 125 is not the most likily number of seats for the next parliament. Base on the fact that:
i. Currently, there are 121 federal ridings in Ontario, among those:

• 111 ridings in Southern Ontario have a provincial counterpart;
• 10 northern ridings, which were converted into 13 provincial ridings.

ii. The 2022 redistribution allocates 122 HoC seats to the province;
iii. The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario has "concluded that it was necessary to reduce the number of districts: Northern Ontario Northern Ontario and the City of Toronto."

The most possible scenario in the future would be like this:

• There'll only be 9 federal ridings in the north ;
• Sorthern Ontario will gain not only 1, but 2 seats, ends up with 113 HoC seats.

Assumimg those 13 provincial ridings in the north shall remain, There will be 13 + 113 = 126 seats in Queen's Park.— An Macanese 16:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This is what we have now:

	HoC	OntLA
N. Ont.	10	13
S. Ont.	111
Total	121	124

And this is what gonna happen, I suppose:

	HoC	OntLA
N. Ont.	9	13
S. Ont.	113
Total	122	126

In my opinion, it is quite hard to express in just one sentence. Do you have any suggestion, may I ask?—An Macanese 16:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. I reverted your addition because you wrote With the 2022 Canadian federal electoral redistribution, it is expected that Ontario will be allotted 1 additional seat, which would potentially increase the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 124 to either 125 or 126, shall the one of the seats in Northern Ontario is set to be redistributed to the southern part of the province federally. which makes no sense at all. You just need to propose some new text, based on referenced facts, and not suppositions or guesses, that actually says what you are trying to explain. - Ahunt (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please cooperate, and I hope we become good partners

Hey guys, thanks for the welcome, I'm happy, I hope I can learn a lot from you, who are more experienced in Wikipedia than me, there are still a lot of features that I don't know I hope you will cooperate with me and become a partner on Wikipedia.✨❤️👍🏻 Sejarawan128 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. If you have any questions please do feel free to drop me a note! - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What are they puttin' in the water up there in Waterloo?

See here, and note the false edit summary, and that it came back. Or am just a stuffy middle-ager who can't understand slang of today's youth? BilCat (talk) 03:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't search as anything as a phrase itself, so I assume it is just an attempt at some sort of rhyming humour (with a "u"). This was as close as I could find. Keep in mind that marijuana is legal here! - Ahunt (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. That would explain a LOT! BilCat (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Self-explanatory

See here. BilCat (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure you weren't being trolled? At least that was a short, pointless conversation. Open this one I closed if you dare... - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure. But per AGF, and Hanlon's razor too, I generally take it as good faith until proven otherwise. BilCat (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh I agree, that is the best approach. A slightly longer conversation tends to decide the issue, though. - Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely, as you noted here. BilCat (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that is a pretty good example! There are lots of ways to waste people's time however! - Ahunt (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would see this, but you did. The things people write here. BilCat (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

No shortage of "I know stuff", even when it is off-topic or just plain wrong! - Ahunt (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's what one gets when one advertise one's site as "The encyclopedia anyone can edit." Anyone does, whether they should or not! BilCat (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

It has its advantages and disadvantages. Mostly the competent and dedicated stick around while the others do not, even if there is a constant process of shaking them out. You do have to admit what we have built to date is actually pretty impressive, regardless of the machinations to get there every day. - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hi Ahunt, I'm new to making userboxes and sorry to bother you, but can you explain where I can create one? Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 00:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Where you can put a box that you make? There are choices! We actually have guidance on that at WP:UBXNS. Let me know if you need more info. That said, when I make userboxes, I always make them on sub-pages of my own user page, such as User:Ahunt/SGS126. - Ahunt (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll let you know if I need more info <3! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 00:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Glad that was helpful. Let me know if you do need any help on that. I am always happy to assist. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes it is best...

to just do what people ask. See here. BilCat (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep he was wrong. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

My first thought was "What was he thinking?", but my second thought "What was he smoking?"! BilCat (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I find the hardest thing on Wikipedia is trying to tease apart mental illness from trolling. - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes its both! BilCat (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not inconceivable. - Ahunt (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you have to some type of mental issue to be a troll in the first place. BilCat (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that is certainly the case. Usually is is SAD. - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In many cases, it's just alcoholism. BilCat (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, well we have all seen that one in action here! Due to the nature of collaborating on-line to write an encyclopedia, though, it does particularly attract certain groups of people. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

That it does, and most people, even those on the spectrum themselves, aren't trained how to handle such users, especially in disputes. When you get two (or more) such users arguing, it's quite a mess. (I'd say more, but not in a public forum.) BilCat (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence of Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors agrees with your last point! BilCat (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Mmm, yes I have read that essay. - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't implying that you got it from that pag e. It was merely my way of pointing out that page, and that it agreed with you. BilCat (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The essay writer is dead right though! - Ahunt (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know. BilCat (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely. - Ahunt (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Welcoming problem users

When welcoming a problem user, as you did on User talk:M. rrrrr. xxxx, it might be better to use a template like {{welcome-unconstructive}}. The template you used looks as though you were thanking them for posting personal info on Talk:Gmail. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I do like to give even vandals the benefit of the doubt. It has not happened really often, but every now and then we get someone who starts as a vandal, but eventually becomes a valued contributor. - Ahunt (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:Estonian yacht designers has been nominated for merging

Category:Estonian yacht designers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Estopedist1 (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Query

Could you email me? I have couple of ideas for sailing-related biographies, but lack the specific sailing knowledge to do them justice. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I have the same question - can you email me? I am Jim Antrim, designer of the Antrim 20 (one of your pages), also of the Ultimate 20, a page I see you have contributed to. SeamusDunluce (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have pages, all work here belongs to Wikipedia, not any one person as per WP:OWN. I see that the Ultimate 20 could use a complete re-write to incorporate refs and fix the language. If you have any questions you can ask them here or on the article talk pages, but you may want to read WP:COI first. - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You can note that Ultimate 20 has now been completely re-written. - Ahunt (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I meant one of the many articles you have contributed to, didn't mean to imply ownership.Thanks for the info you sent which answers most of my questions. And thanks for all your contributions to this wonderful resource. SeamusDunluce (talk) 22:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I am glad that you find Wikipedia of value. It is a big project with a lot of people working and it and we certainly don't get everything right all the time, but the format does allow us to improve things over time, like that boat article that I mentioned overhauling above. If you have any questions or anything please do leave me a note. - Ahunt (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like...

someone has discovered an old book. And apparently they aren't reading the revert summaries either. BilCat (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems oddly pointless. - Ahunt (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup. I'm not sure how best to bring it up with them. They've had issues with adding unsourced material, but this is overkill. BilCat (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps that is an overall "net zero" then...? - Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like. BilCat (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

So perhaps "no foul". - Ahunt (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I misread/misunderstood your comment. I thought you meant that, either way, he seems not to be productive. BilCat (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Well that certainly is the case! - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have decided to sell out to corporate sponsorships userbox

How much to get my company logo on your homepage corporate sponsorships userbox? Manny Manatee (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TAI Hürjet artist conception.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TAI Hürjet artist conception.png. 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) 02:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: with free photos, even if crappy ones, now available, we probably have to legally delete this fair-use image now anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hard enough to take a good picture of a crappy paint scheme! BilCat (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I have mixed feelings about dropping the official fair-use graphic, as it is a much better picture of the aircraft than anything we have on Commons, but the rules say we have no choice, once we have free images, the fair use ones have to go. - Ahunt (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yup. The law is no respecter of good photos! BilCat (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a useful arbiter. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Grumman AA-5 Page

I do understand that the manufactures give the information for the TCDS. But Maximum speed sounds very vague without context. This Maximum Speed sounds like a flimflam drummed up by Tiger Aircraft's marketing.The TCDS is more accurate, because it provides a concise definition of a type-certificated product as produced by the original equipment manufacturer. RedWolf190 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I am guessing that you are not a pilot or have worked in aircraft certification or airworthiness? Maximum speed is V_H, the fastest an aircraft will go at full throttle, in level flight. It is a well-defined and normally specified aircraft performance parameter found in the Pilot Operating Handbook, which is why it is in the Template:Aircraft specs and also listed on the manufacturer's website. You will find it specified for every aircraft type that we have an article here on Wikipedia, for which the number has a reference.

The TCDS is fine as an additional reference for specs, but if you use only that and nothing else you will have to remove just about all the specs we have, because while it does give V_NE (the never exceed speed) and V_NO (maximum structural cruising speed), plus the number of seats, fuel capacity, gross weight and the engine type, that is about it. It gives no dimensions for the aircraft (length, wingspan or height), nor stall speed, typical empty weight, wing area, wing loading, power loading, rate of climb, service ceiling, range, endurance, or maximum speed. Because the TCDS is a certification document it is actually pretty sparse in aircraft details. It is fine to use it, as I noted, but other, more complete refs are needed if the specs are to have more than just a couple of parameters included.

You probably noted that I added the other page of manufacturer's specs as a ref, in case you missed them as a sub-page of the manufacturer's main specs that were already referenced. That means that all the numbers are now fully referenced and verifiable, as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Dampen

Wow, it's been years since I've seen the damp/dampen thing come up! So much so that I've forgotten which side I was on, if any. :) BilCat (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, when I hit "save" I was afraid their might be sides. - Ahunt (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the English language - there are always sides! Per Merriam Webster's, "dampen" is a correct usage, but I think it's conflated with "Damping" to some degree. The "dampen" only means "to wet" people are more than just damp on this! See English: always throwing a wet blanket on your assumptions for an article on slightly unrelated issue. BilCat (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

English is never easy and there are always exceptions! - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I blame William the Conqueror for ruining a perfectly good language. If it wasn't for him, we'd all speak English today. ;) BilCat (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah but then we could not rendezvous en route! - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

LOL! BilCat (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Damping No desire to die on this hill, but I'll defend it until I get bored. uFu (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, you are right. Thanks for fixing it twice. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD...

does not mean this! However, I'm not going to add a note about it to Wikipedia:Be bold per WP:BEANS. BilCat (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That certainly was bold and not italic. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The software gurus are mucking about again

This morning, my Monobook skin is doing plenty of weird things. Among other things, I have to refresh every Wiki-page I open to make them display semi-correctly. I'm not sure if it's Wikipedia, my extremely substandard browser, or both. Ugh! Apparently, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is unknown in the software community. BilCat (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I am using the new Vector 2022 on Firefox and it is working well, if that is any help! - Ahunt (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

A little bit. BilCat (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Once you get used to Vector 2022 it is not bad - the TOC can be hidden at least! - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to get used to it. I dislike change! (I prefer crisp bills, hopefully with large numbers in the corners!) BilCat (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd still be using Windows 98 and IE4/IE5 if I could! (With updates, of course.) BilCat (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

and no browser tabs! - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely no tabs! It's called Windows, not Tabs. ;) BilCat (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

IP range question

Hi Adam, I know how to look at the contributions for a range of IPv6 addresses, such as Special:Contributions/2003:D7:C70F:D600::/64 or Special:Contributions/2003:D7:C70F:D600::/32. However, I can't remember how do it for IPv4 addresses. The ranges I'm trying to look at include Special:Contributions/178.112.253.100 and Special:Contributions/178.113.136.115. Do you know how to do that? The IP hopping user has been adding flags to military and aircraft infoboxes for most of March, and I'm trying to track them down. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, no I don't! I tried a few logical guesses and none worked, either. If you figure it out then let me know! - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will. My go-to admin for this kind of stuff has been offline for a few days. I'll see if I can find another one, or may be one of your stalkers will know. BilCat (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I thought you were the only stalker here! You would think there would be a help page on it somewhere! It's not like we don't write everything down here! - Ahunt (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I found some information at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses, which also has some links to some Wiki Help pages, but I don't understand much of it. BilCat (talk) 03:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I did try Special:Contributions/178.112.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/178.113.0.0/16, and got some wider ranges. I'll keep playing with it and see what comes up.

Yeah I found Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses in my searching, but found it less than helpful! - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries. ".0.0/16" seems to be what i was looking for. BilCat (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm may be it is 16-bit? - Ahunt (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

irregular stalker here (sic or should that be hic) - self identified... the whole IP range thingo some checkusers/admin are reluctant to block a range where legit edits are being conducted - there may well be other things that they dont share, but I think in recent years the potential for more surgical blocking can eventuate, but I suspect that such mechanisms are less discussed openly, (or I am falling for the whole world is a conspiracy thingo)... there's more to it the average editor needs to know - the fall back is always the intriguing links at the bottom of the IP page with the whois etc etc... then there is the floating IP and then the very malicious anonymizers JarrahTree 02:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Complicated, isn't it? - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a lot the admins and check-users don't tell us, which is as it should be. There's a WP-space page about it, but I can't remember what it's called. It's advice is similar. to WP:BEANS, only dealing with a specific technical issue. BilCat (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Finally found it: Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know! BilCat (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup, ignorance is bliss. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused

You say US military aircraft use dmy. But I've been told it's only the US navy that differs. And so many of the articles on the US military use the "wrong" type, which I often leave alone. Can you explain the system? Tony (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it isn't my favourite solution either because it is a bit confusing, but the project consensus is for US civil aircraft we use mdy and for US military of any service stripe we use dmy. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Per WP:MILFORMAT: "In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage." Hope that helps. BilCat (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Basler BT-67

An IP user removed the USFS as a Basler BT-67 operator here. I reverted it, as it shouldn't be removed even if retired, but I couldn't find much online about if or when it/they retired. Can you help? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I am finding lots of photos of USFS Basler BT-67s on the usual plane spotting websites, but nothing WP:RS, including on the official FS website. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Same here. Would the FAA registrations be of any help? Just asking, as that's not my speciality? BilCat (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I did a check on that on the FAA registration site. There are no Basler BT-67s registered anywhere in the US, but I suspect that it would be legally a Douglas DC-3 or C-47 with an STC for an engine mod, though. I checked all the aircraft actually registered to the US Forest Service and they have no DC-3/C-47s. So either they are all out of service, or they are leased or something similar. Oddly the cited ref for the forest service entry at Basler BT-67 only mentions a DC-3, not the Basler BT-67, so not a great ref at all. Checking some airliners.net photos for BT-67 FAA N-number registrations, I spot checked a few like this one N115Z from August 2015 and N142Z from November 2009. The first registration does still belong to the forest service but it is now on a Beechcraft B200GT Super King Air. The second one is a forest service owned Shorts SD3-60 Sherpa now. In the first case no previous aircraft is listed and in the second an Aero Commander 500 is listed that was deregisterd in 1984 (as destroyed), but that could be a database age issue. The plane spotters website photos do show they once had some, but I think that the registrations being re-assigned is pretty good evidence that they are all out of service. - Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Korean F-35s

Hello Adam, thanks for following up on the F-35 operator article! "Operational" is the word I intended to use. I fixed it just now. LightningNThunder (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that will do it! - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

One more question: I noticed {{Use dmy dates}} was added to F-35A Demonstration Team by you. As American English is used in that article, would it be better to keep using the "mdy" format for consistency? (According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Formats, the "mdy" format is also accepted.)

I am not sure about the convention in military articles. I would appreciate it if you could share some guidelines (if any). Thanks! LightningNThunder (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That is here at MOS:MILFORMAT articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. This means that on articles about US civil aviation we use mdy and on US military aviation we use dmy. - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussions of interest

Dear Ahunt, you may be interested in the following discussions:

• Talk:Sailing rigs#Proposed move to "Sailing rigs"
• Talk:Glossary of nautical terms (M–Z)#Add "rig"

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

One Question

I hope you don't misunderstand what I wrote in 747. I can see your point clearly and I really do appreciate meeting an highly qualified person here - whom I would like to ask some questions by the way. It is just not among them the question about the definition of when a "production" is finished, because I don't think there is a standard scientific work (or even any FFA regulation) that deals with this very subject. Is there?

Talking about standard literature just the one question for the next few months; I didn’t yet find descriptions of the design principle of an airliner undercarriage with regard to shearing. The principle is known ; it is known (for around five decades) that a landing gear to prevent ruptured fuel tanks must not exert too great a force on the wing. That is why they are designed to shear off at loads endangering the fuel tanks. Which literature elaborates this principle? Any idea? Many thanks--Anidaat (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note here. You are quite right, we don't have a standard definition of "produced", even though we use the term. A compromise has now been proposed on the 747 talk page to address that, which I have supported.

The landing gear question you pose is an interesting one. The engineering processes and procedures applied to landing gear load design would be contained in specialized engineering text books, but the actual standard for the design of airliners in the US is all in FAR PART 25 - AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES. The parts dealing with landing gear design start with FAR 25.477 Landing gear arrangement. I don't see any requirement there for the landing gear to shear off intentionally. - Ahunt (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll have a look and let you know more - later.--Anidaat (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Time Travel?

How exactly does an aircraft which first flew in 2007 have a fuselage that was based on an aircraft which first flew in 2012? Am I missing something? See here. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it help to know the IP is Comcast based in the US? - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

A lot of our IPs in the US are Comcast. Mine used to be until last year. Being in/near Savannah is interesting though, as there is a major business jet manufacturer near there. BilCat (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon reading the edit my first suspicion was "working in a second language". - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

For a lot of native-born Americans, Standard English is a second language! BilCat (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

True. I think I told the story some time back about giving some Canadians language proficiency tests to people whose first language was English or French and found that about 25% were not proficient in any languages. - Ahunt (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yup, you did. At least twice that I remember, and I thought of it too as I wrote that! A a native speaker of a non-standard variant of English, and a non-native, partially fluent speaker of an English Creole, I have to thank my mom for forcing me to speak "correct" English at home. And as someone who was educated in both standard American English and standard Commonwealth English, I still get confused about some grammar! (Don't ask me to explain the difference between "that" and "which"; I use them interchangeably in some situations where one is correct in one variant, but incorrect in another, and I have no clue which is which. Or is it that is that!) And speaking of "Commonwealth English", thanks for deleting that PA. Talk about missing the point and proving it at the same time! I would have been tempted to respond had it not been deleted already. BilCat (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I can revert my delete if that would help! - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn't need to respond! BilCat (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

thank god (or similar) I was distracted at the time of this conversation, the colonies (sic) like Ozstrylia simply complicate the discussion... JarrahTree 14:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Not according to an LTA from NSW and various other locations Down Under that has been attempting to "correct" the English of various articles, such as by Special:Contributions/14.200.180.142! Check out some of the IP edit summaries on North American F-86 Sabre. These in particular are quite "educational", especially " "University educated" is an oxymoron, particularly in the United States, where affected ignorance is proudly paraded by every navel-gazing narcissist and their dog...". I don't know where he learned to "insult" Americans, but he should get a refund. BilCat (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect? - Ahunt (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If that means "he's not as smart as he thinks he is", then yes. :) BilCat (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Move request

Can you please move the redirect which I created Florida Hospital to User:Catfurball/Florida Hospital. By doing some digging I found out that this dissolved subsidary is notable. Catfurball (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

@Catfurball:  Done, including the talk page. I moved it without leaving a redirect. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	:) BillClinternet (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Hard day at the office... - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

About TAI TF-X

What do you mean by stature of janes and providing a jane? I don't understand. Its been explained on the main page already, just linking you to it should be enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TAI_TF-X&oldid=1148882263

Now can I undo or am I missing something that means you can just keep wrong information that conflict with main pages and every other source? 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:957A:B775:7D19:A9FE (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that edit summary got saved incomplete. It was Jane's that said it was a partnership with Pakistan, so what I was looking for to remove that was a ref that says Jane's was wrong and here it is: https://tolgaozbek.com/haberler/pakistanin-mmu-ortakligi-iddialarina-yalanlama/ - Ahunt (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yeah I saw that a while after and also read the source explaining the misunderstanding. Thank you for reverting 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:957A:B775:7D19:A9FE (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Redhill (UK) Aerodrome IATA code

Dear Adam, excuse me for for being slightly upset with the preceedings at Redhill Aerodrome. Some {{ xyz 123 @#$ }} absolutely wants to retain the unassigned IATA code for it, referring to some or other template that I must admit I cannot fully fathom. Thanks a lot for taking a look, and even more for corrective action. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I had a look and I think the way to fix this is to nominate KRH for speedy deletion, which I have done. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

and it has been deleted. I'll just tidy up there. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Very nice, thanks a lot! Jan olieslagers (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Glad that you thought that solution was acceptable. Given the circumstances, it seemed the best way to proceed. - Ahunt (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I just got notified at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Discussion at User talk:Ahunt § Redhill (UK) Aerodrome IATA code. But I don't really know why. There doesn't seem to be a problem. KRH isn't the code so why keep the redirect. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather:, sorry I probably should have consulted with you earlier. I thought since its creation dated back 17 years and seemed to have been just a simple error it was pretty straightforward. Despite the misgivings expressed by User:Pppery on your talk page it seemed the best solution to just have it deleted. In hindsight asking you to delete it, rather than just tagging it would have been better! Glad you agree that the end result was "in order". - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No need to ask me. It was so long ago that stuff like that didn't always need references. I may have found it somewhere that was correct at that time but the codes do change. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

We'll just close this file as "happy ending", then. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Airmanship

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Airmanship, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Dunya

That's a new one! And maybe production in Cambodia? This guy is nuts! BilCat (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Like Dunya? - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

you ghentlemen venture into dangerous territories some times - take care! JarrahTree 14:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If I was clear on the subject I would agree! - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing to do with that dunya, I think. (But with this LTA, who knows.) @JarrahTree, "Dunya" was in reference to this IP edit by a very long-term LTA. See User talk:Ahunt/Archive35#Seattle-area LTA for more background. BilCat (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah that one! Yes, our same old friend and his long history of making up nicknames for Russian airplanes. Some people need to really "get a better hobby".

Then I encountered a recent case of someone who posted his boat registration document on Commons. I have nominated it for speedy. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure he has one, but somehow gets access to a smartphone even there. :) BilCat (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Must be the weather .... - Ahunt (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's one of their edits to the An-178 article from Oct. 2016. It makes even less sense than the one from today. BilCat (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Suspect: drunk editing? - Ahunt (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm leaning towards missed meds. BilCat (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Similar! - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

And could be both too. BilCat (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Always impossible to rule out... - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

My user talk page

@Ahunt: Can you please remove my talk page from Category:Catholic user templates, ever since another editor left me a message on my talk page it has been screwed up. Catfurball (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done - that was an easy one! - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

no, contrary to popular belief, microsoft's flight simulators are not 'video games'

Goat Simulator and Surgeon Simulator are games. those are game examples that have the word simulator in their names. 2.87.229.202 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

LOL: Despite laying off Flight Simulator team, Microsoft still 'committed to flying games' Computer World: Microsoft Corp. today confirmed swirling rumors that Thursday's layoffs claimed the developer team behind its venerable Flight Simulator game. The software maker declined to confirm whether the 27-year-old "FlightSim" product was being permanently grounded, but it hinted that FlightSim or technology from the game would re-appear in an Internet version for Windows and Xbox users. "Regarding the future of Flight Simulator, all we're announcing at this time is that we are committed to flying games," said a Microsoft spokeswoman via e-mail. "You should expect us to continue to invest in enabling great LIVE experiences on Windows, including flying games, but we have nothing to announce around Flight Simulator specifically at this time." - Ahunt (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate categories?

I saw that you on different times have created the categories Category:Sailboat types built by Advance Sailboat Corp and Category:Sailboat types built by Advance Sailboat Corporation‎, and Category:Sailboat types built by Beetle Boat Co and Category:Sailboat types built by Beetle Boat Company‎. They look like duplicates, but if different companies they should probably be disambiguated by year of foundation or city or something. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

You are quite right, those are unintentional duplicates and need merging. I will fix those, so thanks for pointing them out. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Great, what about:

• Category:Sailboat types built by Lofland Sail-craft and Category:Sailboat types built by Loftland Sail-craft
• Category:Sailboat types built by Nor'Sea Marine and Category:Sailboat types built by Nor'Sea Yachts
• Category:Sailboat types built by Ranger Fiberglass Boats and Category:Sailboat types built by Ranger Yachts
• Category:Sailboat types built by Sailstar Boat Company and Category:Sailboat types built by Sailstar Boats
• Category:Sailboat types built by Vagabond Boats and Category:Sailboat types built by Vagabond Sailboats

Kaffet i halsen (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay I checked each of these:

• Category:Sailboat types built by Lofland Sail-craft and Category:Sailboat types built by Loftland Sail-craft -  Fixed as "Loftland" was a spelling mistake in some of the refs cited that was later corrected in the refs themselves.
• Category:Sailboat types built by Nor'Sea Marine and Category:Sailboat types built by Nor'Sea Yachts - the cited refs support each of these and they may be different companies.
• Category:Sailboat types built by Ranger Fiberglass Boats and Category:Sailboat types built by Ranger Yachts - the refs and article text confirm that these are different companies, see Ranger 24 for explanation.
• Category:Sailboat types built by Sailstar Boat Company and Category:Sailboat types built by Sailstar Boats -  Fixed as the company name is correctly the Sailstar Boat Company.
• Category:Sailboat types built by Vagabond Boats and Category:Sailboat types built by Vagabond Sailboats - the cited refs support each of these and they may be different companies.

Thanks for bringing those up for checking. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Advance Sailboat Corp

A tag has been placed on Category:Advance Sailboat Corp indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Beetle Boat Co

A tag has been placed on Category:Beetle Boat Co indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Loftland Sail-craft

A tag has been placed on Category:Loftland Sail-craft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sailstar Boats

A tag has been placed on Category:Sailstar Boats indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate category

Hello Ahunt,

I just noticed a duplicate category and don't really know what to do to get it fixed. After some searching I ended up at the page WP:CFD, but after reading the nomination procedure I found it kinda difficult/confusing how to put in a request. The duplicate categories are Category:Werf Gusto and Category:Gusto Shipyard. The first category seems to use the Dutch name of the shipyard, while the second category uses the English name. Since the English wiki article about the shipyard (Gusto Shipyard) uses the English name, I think the English named category should be kept and the Dutch one be removed/deleted. In addition, there is also a subcategory in Category:Werf Gusto named "Sailboat types built by Werf Gusto". If that could be renamed "Sailboat types built by Gusto Shipyard", then we could move that into Category:Gusto Shipyard. SailingthroughHistory (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, all  Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Movement needed...

...at Friendship sloop. Look in on the problem at Talk:Friendship Sloop#Proper noun?, if you would! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done. Are you inclined to add an opinion? - Ahunt (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to your diligence, I saw that it wasn't a simple answer! I notice that Baltimore Clipper has the same issue. I'm inclined to go with lower case for sloop, since there is a group of enthusiasts for the type of boat, but it isn't a formal class. I'll say so there. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that the conditions are met for the proposed move? The target title is currently a redirect. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We normally let these discussions run a week, just to ensure anyone who wants to participate can do so. - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Boeing 717

Hi Adam, I finally got to fly on a Boeing 717 while on my vacation. It has a bigger fuselage than a CRJ, so I found it more comfortable. However, it seems louder, though I was in the back half of the 717's cabin, and last time flew in the front half of the CRJs. Also, the 717s seemed louder than the DC-9s I flew on as a child. Overall, I liked them. BilCat (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a rare opportunity! The Boeing 717 is really a DC-9, though. - Ahunt (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it really is a DC-9, just with loud British engines. I flew on many MD-80s and MD-90s also so I was interested in how it compared to them also. I also was unfortunate in that the main leg of my return flight was on an A320. I had to fix the bathroom mirror, which had come open and was in the way in the very small lavatory. I never cared for Airbuses much, and that didn't help my thoughts towards them, as I was wondering what else might go wrong! BilCat (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a bit of a collector's item! They only built 156! - Ahunt (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup. They're certainly sprite little things. No in-flight entertainment though, but the flight was only 20 minutes. We did sit at the end of the runway for 40 minutes though because of rain, so that wasn't fun, but we could use 5G as we were still on the ground. BilCat (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

LOL, 40 minutes on the ground for a 20 minute flight. Might have been quicker to bike! - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Not quite, as it's about a 2-hour drive. I still prefer the flight to the drive, though I did have to go to the restroom very quickly after landing! BilCat (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Not very efficient, though! - Ahunt (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Weather happens. My first flight of the day was delayed about 30 minutes because of weather (before I got to the airport by car), but fortunately I had about 3-hour delay. As I once heard, "I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there, than up there wishing I was down here." BilCat (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Better to be sitting at then gate on ground power than running on the runway, though. - Ahunt (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Or in the terminal, where at least you can go to the bathroom! BilCat (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Well exactly (or even still at the hotel). That was the way I did it, but then I never flew schedules. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

LOL. I stayed with my sister for a week, which was an hour and a half from the airport. But it was a good trip and the flights up there were on time. Besides, I've had worse delays before. BilCat (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

At least you weren't grounded by a labour dispute! - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Here it's a "labor dispute". ;) BilCat (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

- I knew that! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

LOL. BilCat (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Vespina (aircraft)

Hi Adam, I'm having difficulty getting productive changes to stick at Vespina (aircraft), which are being reverted by the article's creator as "vandalism". Any help from you or your watchers would be appreciated. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done the MOS applies! - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. If he blanket reverts us again, I may take him to ANI. The vandalism accusations are not helpful at all. BilCat (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably the best course of action. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Planespotters

The discussion mentions that the user-sourced content on Planespotters is photographs and their captions- not the fleet data. What, then, is unreliable? And if not this, is there a single "reliable" source for airline fleets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurferSquall (talk • contribs)

The problem with planespotters is that it is all user-submitted in one form or another, so WP:SPS. As noted in the discussion I cited their numbers have been contradicted by other sources, too. There are sources of official airline fleet numbers, in particular some airlines actually detail them on their website, which is ideal, while many national aviation authorities have databases of aircraft registries. Many are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Resources, plus http://www.airframes.org/ as well. - Ahunt (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is why...

I opposed, and still oppose, the decision to merge the aircraft infoboxes. See here for a new user's entirely good faith attempt to add the new aircraft infobox to an article. I hate to see what's going to happen when it actually goes live. What an absolute mess! BilCat (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that project was not proceeding... - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, as I stopped following the discussions. Also, I was under the impression we had no choice but to allow it to proceed. If it's stalled, that's good news. BilCat (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the last thing I saw a bunch of us wanted to see a mock-up to see if it worked first and the potential coder refused. He wanted us to buy the product before he made it, which resulted in an impasse and he took his football and went home. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It was taken up by another user. See Template talk:Infobox aircraft, where it's close to being implemented. Sigh. BilCat (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh... - Ahunt (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Archive.org help

Hey Adam, do you know how find the Archive.org link for this backissue of Flight? The print info is Vol. LXIII, no. 2309. 24 April 1953. p. 513. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked archive.org and they have not archived it, nor has ghostarchive.org. It is at https://archive.is/d6aJB but not in a readable form, although it at least proves it once existed. - Ahunt (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for trying. BilCat (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully FlightGlobal put is back up! Any idea what is happening on that? - Ahunt (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen or heard anything on that at all. BilCat (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Me neither. FlightGlobal giveth and FlightGlobal taketh away. Shows the value of archiving when you can, though! These days I archive every ref I use, without exception, for just that reason. - Ahunt (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I believe I found the info I was searching for anyway. BilCat (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh that is great! Archive it quick!

I mostly use archive.today, which is really convenient as there is an extension that puts a button on Firefox - so one click and it archives automatically. The only drawback with archive.today is that does not do video or PDFs. For those you need archive.org or ghostarchive.org. - Ahunt (talk) 01:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks. BilCat (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@BilCat Sometimes, on archive.today, you can retreive the original text by using "view source"/inspect element, there have been pages I've seen where the layout is broken but the original text is still in the html. Rlink2 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Minor edit request May 25th

Hello- I’m stuck editing from my mobile phone the next several days, which is a pain. I’ve added some aircraft orders to Air Belgium (2016), could you merge the boxes in the fleet table and update the fleet number in the infobox? SurferSquall (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Editing on a phone must be a challenge.  Done - hope I got it right! - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! SurferSquall (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Glad that looks right! - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons image rename

Hey, can you rename File:Starboard engine nacelle of a Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.jpg to something more correct, like "inlet"? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done, now at File:Starboard engine inlet of a Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.jpg. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's understandable that not everyone understands aircraft terminology, but I just couldn't leave that one unchanged. BilCat (talk) 01:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

LOL, no problem, even if it isn't used on any page (yet). It might one day! - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Too late, already was! BilCat (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

"Past tense". I did check "what links here! - Ahunt (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And it might yet come back. It's a decent photo of the inlet itself, if a bit tight in. BilCat (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really that useful for the F-104 article, but perhaps for Components of jet engines. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. BilCat (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Raptor NG

Hi Adam,

I've added another link on the NG Raptor. Many thanks for knocking the last one into shape. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burden you with bringing this latest post into WP compliance. Thanks in anticipation, and sorry! Arrivisto (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

No sweat, easily done! - Ahunt (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Int 14 category

Article says "developmental sailing class" not one-design. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explaining. I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nav Canada

Can you check out this edit? The reference given, What We Do, says there are six but Pilot Briefing Service makes it looks like there are only four. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the page on Pre-Flight Briefings and Flight Plans is pretty definitive! I have updated our article and added that page as a ref. I think What We Do is just out of date. I did check the latest TC AIM edition, but it is out of date, too, still indicates Winnipeg is open. It also lacks an actual clear list of FICs, which is a bit odd. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem! - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)