User talk:JFG/Archive 2016

Soyuz-U retired?

Hmm....what's your source on that the Soyuz-U variant has been retired? According to sources at NASASpaceflight.com and Novosti Kosmonavtiki, there are at least 3 more Soyuz-U left to fly (for Progress MS-3/4/5). They even have the serial numbers of the rockets left to fly..... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, seems I was a bit quick in my eulogy for Soyuz-U :) -- 2016 in spaceflight listed the future Progress MS-3/4/5 flights on Soyuz-2.1a like the first two; I didn't go back to check sources. Let me rephrase accordingly. — JFG ^talk 11:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Delegate total on Republican primaries

Hi, in reference to the delegate total—in the edit you undid I just added the 42 delegates from Wisconsin. I just had a look at the total again and did a sum over all the delegates that have been allocated so far, which now comes out as 1,689. The reason the column in the table doesn't sum to the total is that there are uncommitted delegates, but I take it the "Total" there is supposed to be "total delegates allocated so far" rather than "total delegates pledged to a particular candidate". —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Nizolan:, yes this total should mean "Total delegates allocated so far", however the Wisconsin delegates were already in there (36 for Trump and 6 for Cruz). Not sure if we should add the uncommitted delegates in there, and from which source(s)... Anyway, back to fighting over-enthusiastic editors who keep changing numbers after a glance at their TV screen. — JFG ^talk 22:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I was sure it had been the same before Wisconsin, that's why I updated. Thanks for checking. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(on some election page)

Why isn't NC colored gold? Hillary won that state Todd4069 (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Todd4069: I don't see such a problem. which page are you talking about? — JFG ^talk 05:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

On the Dem map NC should already be colored gold for Hillary Todd4069 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just looked at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 again, I see all maps colored correctly. Anyway, that would be a question for the map's author, not me. Click on the map you want to get changed, look at the file details then contact the uploader. Cheers! — JFG ^talk 16:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry lol apparently i don't know my states I was looking at KY. The dems haven't had the primary yet Todd4069 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hah! Back to school I guess ;) — JFG ^talk 00:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha thanks for your diligence! Todd4069 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

redirect v article

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I reverted your change back to a redirect because I feel like having a dedicated article for launch and payload is important for these very significant launches. For the past three launches, much coverage (enough to meet WP:GNG) on the launch itself rather than the payload has come up, somewhat of a shift from the past. Because of that, articles started being made for launches as well as payloads such as Falcon 9 Flight 20, Falcon 9 Flight 21, and Falcon 9 Flight 22. I see Falcon 9 Flight 23 as the continuation of that and far more notable than Falcon 9 Flight 22 because it actually worked and therefore is getting a lot more coverage in the news. It's a stub right now so it doesn't add much over the main article, but I think it's a good idea to keep the clearly notable subject on its own article so that it can be expanded in the future. Appable (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree so I'll revert you a second time and invite you to take this discussion to the talk page. I'll list my arguments there. — JFG ^talk 09:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Republican 2016 Primary Race

Thanks for the correction and your work on the important WP article: Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016. You are entirely correct as I read:
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf
"THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE RULE NO. 1: Organization of the Republican National Committee
(b) For the purposes of this rule and all other rules, "state" or "states" shall be taken to include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, except in Rule No. 14, and unless the context in which the word "state" or "states" is used clearly makes such inclusion inappropriate."

Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC) -- We live in interesting times.

You're welcome. I learn something new every day. — JFG ^talk 05:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

File:U.S. States by Vote Distribution, 2016 (Republican Party).svg

Hi just wanted to notice I updated the map. The size of each pie chart is propotional to its state delegates. Although it took some time, but it is finally done!;) Ali Zifan 03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks! — JFG ^talk 14:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

MEO/MTO

Hello JFG. Thanks for edits to the list. All NAVSTAR satellites are designed with apogee propulsion system, except for GPS IIF. See http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-2f.htm and http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-3.htm. All PAM-D upper stages (for IIR and IIRM series, e.g. http://www.n2yo.com/browse/?y=2000&m=7) have decayed, while Centaur/DCCS still stay on the graveyard orbit. @JFG: PSR B1937+21 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Timeline of spaceflight/WIP

Hello JFG,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Timeline of spaceflight/WIP for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tpdwkouaa: As Anthony Appleyard noted, this was a temporary page to work on a new graph; this work is done now, feel free to delete the page. — JFG ^talk 18:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, in the future though, please try to keep test and WIP edits in either your sandbox, or a draft. The graph looks really good though! Thank you, Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I should have used the Draft namespace. — JFG ^talk 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Done I now have deleted Timeline of spaceflight/WIP. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Round-robin

Hi JFG, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Women's Laser Radial World Championship and Talk:Article 50. I made these redirects from the old page to the new one for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.

For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. See WP:PMVR#rr for the details. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the note. In the case of Article 50, I didn't perform a full 3-step swap and I skipped re-creating the Talk page when I made the new redirect of Article 50 to Withdrawal from the European Union. In the case of Women's Laser Radial World Championship(s) I'm not sure why the talk page wasn't swapped properly; good on you catching the error! — JFG ^talk 05:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi JFG, looks like you forgot to round-robin the subpages. See Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Syrian Civil War vs Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Syrian civil war. Also, make sure you also update the bot archiving, e.g. Special:Diff/728327326. I'll get to this now — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Andy! Strange... the move tool should have taken care of all the talk subpages. I'll triple-check next time. — JFG ^talk 18:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've missed the "Move subpages" button or redirect button once or twice but cleanup wasn't too bad. I somehow think they should make move subpages default to users who have it to keep everything together, you know what I mean? Anyway, no problem :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes Andy I just suggested this on Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Moving subpages should be the default action. — JFG ^talk 09:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of spaceflight changes

I love your changes to the 2016 in spaceflight article! I suggest you also update Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group to document the new sections and formats. --IanOsgood (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

??

Please see User_talk:Vkumar1216#spelling --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean Calcutta High Court → Kolkata High Court? :Sure, I fixed the spelling for him. — JFG ^talk 05:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but it wasn't fixed when I posted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Irina Yarovaya

How do you know the article does not mention Yarovaya if you do not speak Russian? Are you searching for "Яровая"? You know, in Russian we have declinations. Try seraching for "Яров".--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I can read it very well, thank you. The article only mentions the Пакет Яровой which bears Yarovaya's name, it doesn't say anything about her, and although it criticizes the contents of this legislative packet and the manner in which it was passed, it certainly doesn't support the libelous wording that was inserted into the article earlier by an IP editor (and that version was unsourced). Besides, this is just an opinion piece which probably wouldn't hold up to scrutiny as a reliable source. Please find better sources and stick to facts if you wish to expand the article. — JFG ^talk 07:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. You will probably not like it in the end, but I do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, thanks for improving the wording and the sourcing! — JFG ^talk 07:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but I am not done yet. Finding reliable sources that she is hated by her colleagues and called "slut" in the media will be tougher, but I hope still possible. Just can not do it full time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate for a WP:BLP. — JFG ^talk 08:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate if this is properly reflected in reliable sources. Obviously I am not going to add this material unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for closing panel

Hi JFG, I've created a discussion for finding editors for the closing panel, at the Administrator's noticeboard. The discussion is here, so this is just courtesy notice. Thanks, Kylo Ren (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Move review for 2016 NFL Draft

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2016 NFL Draft. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I know it's late. If there's any way you can resolve this, I'd be happy to back out the review. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Not sure what you are hinting at for me to resolve. I just posted a comprehensive answer to the move review. Let the chips fall where they may — JFG ^talk 15:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping you might say that you stand by the consensus but regret applying to a ton of pages where the issue was not advertised. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record (mostly towards my own potentially lapsing memory), the move decision was endorsed. — JFG ^talk 09:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to move the section

Hi JFG, saw your note at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Post-discussion potential move considerations. My intent was to mention that editnotices, archiving, template-namespace links, etc. would be uncontroversial and can (should) be done quickly. Didn't intend for the section to be a link/grace period discussion (which is more situation-specific). Per WP:MULTI, feel free to move that section to another page or let me know if you want me to do it (though I think you have more context). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done – See Talk:New York/July 2016 move consequences. — JFG ^talk 17:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

On MUOS-5

In the spaceflight by the years articles, the usual practice as far as I know (which is shared with all the websites dealing with such statistics, such as http://planet4589.org/space/) is that only problems related to launch vehicles that caused the spacecraft to miss its target orbit or suffer from serious damage would be counted towards any kind of failures. Problems with the spacecraft itself would not count (see e.g. the Fobos-Grunt case).

Besides, I don't see anything that shows the problem to be non-salvageable at this moment (see e.g. http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/02/navy-looks-for-plan-b-to-salvage-its-newest-communications-satellite/), so I'm not sure your wording in the 2016 in spaceflight article is warranted. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Galactic Penguin SST, you are correct, this is a similar case to Fobos-Grun. In fact I added a long comment to clarify that the rocket was not at fault, but the stats should remain untouched; I'll revert myself on the timeline of spaceflight graph as well. Maybe we should place a note in the page explaining what is considered a failure or partial failure, in the same way as we had to explain sometimes what is and is not a spaceflight.

On MUOS-5 being salvageable, my money is rather on the army finding a creative way to use the bird in its present orbit, given the rather large ∂v requirements to move it to GSO if they can only rely on attitude-control thrusters. That would be similar to what happened to AMC-14 or Galileo FOC 1+2. — JFG ^talk 21:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Closed RfM on Queen Anne of Romania

Hello, I politely ask you to reconsider your decision to close the RfM, as consensus had formed towards moving the page. Furthermore, in your decision you cite guidelines while claiming to cite policies (see WP:POLICY), so I strongly recommend you ammend your comment. I'm going to wait one more day before starting a formal move review. Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my detailed close statement. I understand your position but my decision accurately reflects Wikipedian consensus (which, as nominator, it is not your job to judge). WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT which is indeed policy, and has higher standing than the supporters' arguments in this case. I also cited WP:OFFICIAL which is a guideline against giving undue weight to the official standing of a name, and WP:RGW which is an essay explaining that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for what is right and wrong, but rather to neutrally report real-world usage. Kindest regards, — JFG ^talk 08:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As I consider your decision specious, I'll proceed with the move review.Anonimu (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 09:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I didn't really follow the discussion on Queen Margarita of Bulgaria. However in that case it seems pretty clear that WP:COMMONNAME goes against your decision, so your rationale doesn't hold, see my comment at Talk:Queen_Margarita_of_Bulgaria#Requested_move_16_August_2016. I'm inclined to open another review on that close. Please comment. Anonimu (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Common name or not, there was no consensus for the proposed change, and a new move request is already in progress with another potential title. I have no further comments on that case. — JFG ^talk 13:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Queen Anne of Romania

An editor has asked for a Move review of Queen Anne of Romania. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Anonimu (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC structure

Re: [1], please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. The question should be the first part of the text, followed immediately by your first signature. If you click through to one of the listing pages, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, you'll see that the question does not appear there. It should not only appear there, but it should be the only thing that appears there. (You'll also see that a lot of other editors are doing it wrong, too.) If you fix the RfC, the listing pages will be automatically updated before long. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for the note. I have amended the RFC listing accordingly. — JFG ^talk 10:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience

Hi JFG, hope everything's going well. Thought I'd share a script here (js) that semi-automates round-robin page swaps for convenience, and thought you may want to try it out. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to try it! — JFG ^talk 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

New York

Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?

• No, but the page's owner will stonewall any attempt to fix it, so it's time for me to move on to an area of Wikipedia that I can actually improve without getting reverted. Thanks for trying, and for preventing that filibuster from being too one-sided. Certes (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I just want to illuminate the issue from yet another angle, for the benefit of all readers. Please state your opinion in the RFC. Any WP:OWNership or WP:BATTLEfield issues should be dealt with separately. Don't let anyone stonewall your voice! — JFG ^talk 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Free trade zone#Requested move 28 August 2016. For your information, see also Talk:List of Special Economic Zones in India#Requested move 28 August 2016.
128.179.146.139 (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

See also Talk:Free trade area#Requested move 3 September 2016.
Juliet Jolly (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

1 to 100

Hi JFG, there appears to be rough consensus at the RfC you opened. I personally still don't believe in the moves actually, but it looks like they will proceed, and a potential closer will likely judge that as well. Most of the templates that should undergo changes are reasonably mentioned in the RfC afaik. I'm planning on being on semi-wikibreak in the next month or so (I'll see how that goes), so I don't know if I'll have the time to enact or properly oversee the move transition and template changes. Would you be willing to to implement the conditional logic to the year nav/dab templates? I'll be around some time I guess, and let me know if you wanted a second opinion on something — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the notice. I'm happy to see that consensus is forming there. We still have about a week until closing (30 days from 19 August). I'll be quite busy myself at that time, so assuming the move is approved, we should work with the closer and any other volunteers to apply the prerequisite changes to templates. It looks like there will be a debate on the titling of year pages so that would buy us time as well. WP:No deadline helps. Perhaps before you leave you could suggest an exact sequence of steps to be taken, and I can review it? When that process is settled, I don't worry about implementation. — JFG ^talk 17:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: In the Talk:1 RFC, I see that you recently stroke your "(for now)" but still have an "oppose" !vote bolded. Do you really mean to oppose? — JFG ^talk 17:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi JFG, yes I do mean it, still mostly per the technical concerns. I share similar feelings with some editors who think this is a solution in search of a problem. Though if the eventual closer closes the request as having consensus, that's okay by me. I'll help out if I can. Currently, I'm worried that the closer says, "move the pages", and people start acting on them, breaking nav/dab links. I'm not enthusiastic about hatching out a technical plan until the RFC closes in favor — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Let's see what happens. — JFG ^talk 05:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Helpful hint

Extradition is state-level law, so if someone has been extradited to New York, they have been extradited to the state (even if they are physically moved to the city, extradition subjects them to the laws of the state). In case it comes up, by the way, all New York laws are state laws. The city only has ordinances. bd2412 T 16:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Thanks, good to know if such cases come up again. Which article was this about? — JFG ^talk 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC close

I see that a bot has removed the RfC notice concerning PT of NY [2] but I don't see any closure... you srer more experienced in RfCs I gather, what happens next? Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Bots automatically expire pending RFCs after 30 days. In normal circumstances, anyone could close this one with an obvious-looking consensus, however given the sensitive nature of the discussions I have requested a formal close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It may yet take a few days or weeks until an admin volunteers. WP:No deadline. — JFG ^talk 11:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood thank you ... you are 'way ahead of me. I was actually wondering about ANRFC but hadn't checked there to see whether it had already happened... should have done so. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And I see we have a volunteer. Better than weeks or months. (:-> Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Deplorables

I just wanted to offer my support for this edit, which seems broadly in line with the language we worked out together a few days ago. If you find yourself getting push back on the article talk page, let me know and I will go to bat for you on this issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Will keep watching this. Thanks for the emotional relief! — JFG ^talk 15:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

When archiving...

A "live" discussion that was still ongoing has been returned to the New York talk page. Please be more careful when you manually archive.  Paine  ^u/c 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I archived this recent thread on purpose with the rest, feeling that we all need a bit of fresh air. Of course it's your prerogative to restore it, no harm done either way. Doesn't mean that I consider the case closed, I sure don't… Now see my edits to the Talk:New York/FAQ for some humorous assessment of the 2016 saga. — JFG ^talk 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Fresh air's nice; however, I doubt that all of our involvement with this requested move has slowed any of us up with our other tasks. I could be wrong. In any case, that particular discussion puts us on the verge of a resolution. And it all rests with whatever Newyorkbrad decides to do. If that editor decides to withdraw their singleton close, then we can perhaps decide on a new closing panel. And if the decision is not to withdraw, either explicitly or tacitly, then we will be compelled to open a move review. Either way, we will be brought nearer to true closure.  Paine  ^u/c 07:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather leave this episode to rest and get ready to craft a fresh move request taking into account events and new information since the non-closure of the previous one. But I'm watching your efforts with interest. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and I like the FAQ page, especially the handy history links for this ongoing saga!  Paine  ^u/c 08:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I repaired (I hope!) your signature at WP:HIGHBEAM

At WP:HIGHBEAM, it appeared to me that your signature had become detached from your subscription request and has been moving down the page; I have moved it back to where I assume it was supposed to be. [3] If I have guessed wrong, please feel free to revert my change, and my apologies in advance for any misunderstanding. Best--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Arxiloxos: Oh yes, thanks! Looks like Lingzhi made a typo when approving me. And that reminds me of completing my registration… — JFG ^talk 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DATERANGE

Hi JFG. Just wondering how you managed to convert the year ranges with Thatcher. Did you use a script? (If you did, I'd like to know which.) Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 08:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: No, I went through them manually. — JFG ^talk 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016

It got over-ridden in an (edit conflict), but please discuss your (rightfully) bold changes on talk. Thanks ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, let's talk there. — JFG ^talk 01:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States

See my comment on that article's talk page. MB298 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: Thanks, I answered at length there. — JFG ^talk 06:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Presidential & Vice President related articles. Please be patient & wait until Trump & Pence have taken office :) GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait until January 20, 2017, PLEASE. There's not need to rush things along. GoodDay (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It's not a question of being impatient; it's a question of reporting facts. DT is President-elect. Barring exceptional events, he will take office and the country will move on. For the record, I would defend the same position if Hillary Clinton had been elected. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

He' not the U.S. President yet, though. At the very least, his name there should be hidden, until inauguration day. One wouldn't make such edits in the infobox at Donald Trump, because one would be reverted by many. Again, be patient. GoodDay (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to clarify the situation. Hope this meets your agreement. — JFG ^talk 09:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Compound adjective (hyphenation)

For your information, see Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Requested move 17 November 2016.
Kalimera Pouliths (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC).

RFC Closure

Hi JFG. Regarding your recent closure at Talk:Amouli, could you describe why it was closed as not moved (other than the !vote spread)? Your closing comment didn't elaborate. I was just curious because the request was consistent with established guidelines, deferred to reliable sources, sought consistency with like articles, etc., so I wanted to try to better understand what the stronger argument was that you saw on the other side. Thank you for any clarification! ╠╣uw [talk] 19:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:RMCI the closer must weigh the arguments presented in light of policy, and avoid injecting their personal opinion (luckily I have none on this subject). Supporters essentially backed your proposal to apply the WP:USPLACE guideline to article titles for Samoan localities. Opponents argued that USPLACE shouldn't apply the same way to Samoa as it applies to US states, and that WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME were stronger criteria. Potential exceptions were mentioned for ambiguous names but there was no support for blanket renamings, despite the WP:CONSISTENCY argument. Article titles are ultimately governed by the five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and absent any assertion that such criteria would justify the proposed long names for every Samoan locality, I had to deny the global move while leaving the door open for individual title changes. Finally, a WP:WIKILAWYER may assert that WP:AT is policy while WP:USPLACE is a guideline, so the former should carry more weight (but I didn't even consider this minor detail as relevant before being asked to justify my close). — JFG ^talk 21:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate the detail. At some point I may try an RfC on one of the individual localities and see what happens. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Falcon reentry burns

Hi, I noticed your edit comment on one of the Falcon articles about engine burns. All first stage reentry burns use 3 engines.

The landing burns can either be done with 1 engine or 3 engines. 1 engine burns are safer - especially on the ocean - because they allow impact speed to be picked with greater precision (which optimally should be 0 m/s). Imagine a rocket coming in for a landing while the drone ship is rocking on 15 foot waves. If the boat is swinging up toward the rocket, the rocket needs to rapidly adjust its speed so that it doesn't crash into the deck of the ship.

However, 1 engine burns use much more fuel than 3 engine burns. They use 1/3 the fuel per unit of time (of course. One engine lit compared to three), but they have to burn for much more than three times longer than a three engine burn due to extra gravity losses. 3 engine burns on the other hand minimize gravity losses, but allow so little margin for error when coming in for a landing that the stage often lands hard, damaging the legs or even weakening the structural integrity of the whole stage if the landing is too hard. — Gopher65_talk 03:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gopher65: This explanation makes total sense, thanks for taking the time to message me. Have you found some sourcing other than Reddit in the meantime? — JFG ^talk 10:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

SES S.A. - Future satellite launches

Hi JFG. Saw you undid yesterday my edits to this, questioning my source. I had put the source at the start of the table to refer to the whole table (is there a better way to do this?) which you (presumably) took to mean the source was for the first column (Name) only. So, I have reinstated my edits with the source (SES) on each column to make it clear (all columns of the table have been originated/updated from this source since I first included the table 4 years ago). I left your sfn_ls source at the head of the Date column (for SES-10 and SES-11) and your 'Early 2017' from sfn_ls for SES-11 instead of 'H1 2017' from SES as they could mean the same thing! Hope this makes sense to you... Satbuff (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Satbuff: Yes, that's much clearer, thanks! Looks like SES-17 is not on the overview page though. I sometimes find much more detailed information on future launches in SES and Intelsat quarterly reports, perhaps this one can be sourced accordingly? — JFG ^talk 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added a source for SES-17 (I'm sure it was mentioned in the original SES overview I cited but, as you say, not now!). Satbuff (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Removing useful things because we don't usually do them

Re: [4]

Say what? I've never seen that particular reasoning in 3.5 years. If it's admittedly useful, what difference does it make that people rarely bother to do it? That would seem to set an upper limit on excellence. What is the benefit of consistent mediocrity?

Another editor saw President-
elect of the United States and found it "jarring". They thought they were fixing it by changing the wording slightly. I agreed that we don't need to allow that break in the first paragraph of the article, and I fixed their fix by restoring the wording and adding the nowrap. We both considered the issue resolved.

The following is downright ugly: January
20, 2017. In several shorter articles I have nowrapped every date, as well as every time-of-day (4:00
p.m. is also ugly), and I have never had a hint of objection to that (let alone the objection that we don't usually do that, therefore we shouldn't). At Donald Trump I chose to nowrap only the date(s) in the first paragraph, at least for the time being. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mandruss. I understand where you're coming from because I also pay a lot of attention to formatting for legibility and I have often applied nowrap tags on dates in tables for example. I agree with the benefits of keeping month and day together, less so for hyphenated words. Let me simulate a narrow screen, as experienced by the complaining editor, by placing line breaks in the text at the width limit, and displaying a side-by-side comparison of the flow. What's uglier?

Your proposal

Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946)
is an American businessman, politician, and the
President-elect of the United States. He is scheduled to take
office on January 20, 2017.

Normal flow

Donald John Trump (/ˈdɒnəld dʒɒn trʌmp/; born June 14, 1946)
is an American businessman, politician, and the President-
elect of the United States. He is scheduled to take office on
January 20, 2017.

Regarding dates, I'd be happy to restore your change, however this would be better addressed as a global rendering issue. Mediawiki already detects spans of text representing dates, it could very easily render a   between every day and month, or before am/pm designations. Perhaps we could suggest this as a software improvement, and see if it gets consensus? — JFG ^talk 11:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's a better rationale than your editsum. Thanks. I guess the two examples above are about equally ugly. My last big proposal is less than a month old and still an open RfC, so I'm not inclined to start another one at this point. If you do, let me know. I'm ok with your last edit for the dates.
I'll say that I prefer nowrap to the nobr nbsp method, despite its taking a little more space. It uses well-known template syntax instead of that weird ampersand-semicolon business, and I think the result is more readable in edit mode. Not a major issue for these two occurrences alone. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad that we could resolve this amicably. Cheers! — JFG ^talk 22:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump administration category

Please stop spamming that link. In most cases, it's already listed in the article you're adding it to. Trump isn't president yet, so he hasn't nominated anyone for his cabinet and he can't until he takes office in January. The category is already listed, just hidden until the date it's actually true. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Niteshift36: Sorry, I didn't see the hidden category because I was adding it with the HotCat tool. No worries. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, pedantically speaking I believe Trump can nominate now, and hearings/grillings of the nominees which need Senate confirmation will commence when the 115th Congress convenes (circa January 3rd if memory serves). In other words, some of them will probably be confirmed through committee prior to Trump becoming potus at the inauguration, but I don't know whether there is a rule about the Senate not holding the "final" vote on consenting to a nomination until post-inauguration. Doesn't change the conclusions you two came to agreement over with respect to your category-discussion, but figured I would mention it, since I think Trump can (and has) technically "nominated" some people already. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

morphing politico source

Thanks for fixing the background-coloration,[5] I wasn't sure how to highlight the whole row. Seems simple now that you have illustrated. In your immediately previous edit, you removed some names which are redlinked, but also some that are no longer visible in the live politico site. My copy was in an open browser tab, and said at the top of the source-prose that it was "updated 2016-11-25" which is why I named the ref thataway. In other words, the politico tracker is adding and removing names as they get tips from transition insiders. The names that I plugged in were visible on the 25th of November or thereabouts, at the URL in question. So is it okay to keep them? Or once politico deletes them from their live tracker, we should also remove them here, on the assumption that their earlier info was found by them to be incorrect? Or is it okay to leave them in, perhaps adding a note that they were in the source at one point but no longer were as of mm/dd/yyyy? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks. The November 25th version of the Politico piece happened to add many unlikely names, practically none of them were notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. I think the Politico editors wised up and removed those names in short order, so I don't see the point in quoting this outdated version now. The article as it stands has enough other sources to ensure that we probably aren't missing any serious candidate for the jobs. — JFG ^talk 22:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I tend to err on the side of politico, rather than wikipedia, but I also think that most of those names were pretty speculative (about half of the ones that were removed were Indiana people -- presumably based on the assumption that Pence would get to make the SecAgr pick?). In any case, I am happy to leave the removed names out for the present. I will try to dig up another source about Hamm being reticent to accept an administration job, however, since that seemed a pertinent factoid w.r.t likelihood. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Tallest buildings and Hong Kong

Thanks for your comment. However, there is no need to take the changes I made to the talk page. It is factually incorrect to put the Hong Kong flag in place as the column clearly is labelled 'country' not 'region' or 'country and/or region'. It would be incorrect to change the labelling of the column because all other flags are for countries. Robynthehode (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump difficulty

The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.

I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.

Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Usernamen1/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=754347721

Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.

Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat. Usernamen1 (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Usernamen1, thanks for your message. I skimmed your draft and it definitely looks like an improvement: you do write good prose. In my experience, it's difficult to make sweeping changes but it is possible to make piecemeal changes with your overall structure in mind, inching towards a better article at each step. You may find both criticism and improvements coming from other editors as you go. Most of the heated discussions are focused on controversial issues of the day, heavily depending on the US news cycle; for example, you might be able to edit quietly and constructively on Trump's real estate career when everybody is focused on his foreign policy, and vice versa. I would encourage you to remain active in the editing community rather than simply hand your draft to other people. Sure, this particular article won't be of FA caliber for quite a while but it's already come a long way from the train wreck it was just a few months ago. Just take it slow.

From a practical standpoint, I would recommend moving your draft to Draft:Donald Trump 2017 and conducting discussions and collaborative improvements there. Then whenever a section feels solid enough, place it in the real article and handle the reactions. Proceed similarly with each potentially contentious area, always treading lightly and respectfully with dissenters. I'd be happy to participate in your effort, time permitting.

Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 05:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouraging comments but it is discouraging to participate. There has been a lot of disagreement just to have the lead say whether he is an American businessman and politician who is the President-elect or leave out the word "politician" as being redundant to President, particularly since he has had no other elected public office. So if I propose to move around sentences, even if nothing is removed, there will be pain and bloodshed. Proposing removal of trivia would be even worse. I would keep an open mind but am wary of constant fighting when some changes should be very easy to reach consensus among normal people. Usernamen1 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Scare quotes"

Regarding this edit, I just happen to be extremely careful to use quotation marks whenever my text retains three or more words in the same order as a source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)

Understood. I just looked up his bio which verifies the fact, so I think the quotes are unnecessary. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Distinguish pledged electors from actual EC votes

When it comes to the historicity of elections, the number of pledged electors is a lot more significant than actual electoral college votes cast. By footnoting off the actual number of pledged electors, you are condemning future generations to a lot of extra clicks. I realize there is a hypothetical situation where someone loses the presidency because of faithless electors. But it is not bluntly likely. In terms of a presidents electoral strength, it is only pledged electors that matters when we are comparing electoral margins. You should footnote off the number of faithless electors, not the other way around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Feran (talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Feran: Sorry, I don't understand what you are accusing me of ("footnoting off the actual number of pledged electors"?). Care to point to a particular edit of mine you'd like to debate? — JFG ^talk 17:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you not change Trump's electoral votes from 306 to 304? And Clinton's similarly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feran (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't. — JFG ^talk 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Feran: Seeing that the infobox contains final results (304/227), I have now added a footnote explaining the discrepancy with pledged electors, thereby fulfilling your prophecy. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 US prez article.

Howdy. I'm walking away from the United States presidential election, 2016 for awhile. It appears that some folks there, have gone nuts over the fact that Sanders won an electoral vote for president. They're increasingly pushing to put him in the Infobox & are pushing to add confusion to the Results section via adding Sanders, Powell, Paul & Kasich write-in-votes, even though those votes don't correlate with their electoral votes :( GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Aren't US politics fun? — JFG ^talk 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Eventually, there'll need to be a split of the Results section into sub-sections of popular votes & electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Eventually, nobody will care any longer… — JFG ^talk 00:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump consensuses list

Thanks for the updates. My intent was "link 1" for the first or only link in each entry, followed by "link 2", etc, for additional links. This, following the precedent set by the "Current/recent consensuses" template box near the top of Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I don't see what uniqueness buys us there, and it's another detail that one has to attend to. Cost-benefit ratio? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Sure; I didn't get your intent, so I just numbered the links with the list items, because it seemed odd to have 5 or 6 "link 1"s. That should be no big deal; hopefully this section helps reduce repeated requests, but I have my doubts. — JFG ^talk 06:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The section is new, so it's quite possible nobody supporting a change in that thread was aware it existed. I Have a Dream that one day the practice will be common enough that many editors will look for that section first. To help that along, I think people should link to the consensuses thread that links to the consensus, also noting the item number, rather than link to the consensus directly. That not only evangelizes the consensuses thread, but it also shows a de facto agreement that the consensus is in fact a consensus (especially valuable in cases without a formal close). ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Amen. — JFG ^talk 07:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic for a personal talk page; please take this to Talk:Donald Trump if you need to. — JFG talk 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have also been watching this, and am not sure it will 'stick' well enough to make it a long-term practice, but there is always hope. At the risk of violating the spirit of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY my suggestion would be that adding nose-counting tallies might be helpful, when they exist. Mandruss has already shown an interest in compilation of such data, so maybe they will be willing to crunch the numbers? The raw figures will give people at least some idea of the strength of an existing consensus, both in percentage terms (if consensus was 90/10 last time that is far stronger than 60/40) and also in terms of absolute noses (if consensus was 123aye/12nay last time that is FAR stronger than 3aye/2nay). I would also like to have the datestamp, or at least, the number of months elapsed, so people get a sense of whether or not it makes sense to bring up an issue again, at a given point in time. I've probably already requested too many additions, but on the theory that it is better to ask for a mile and accept an inch, it would be *very* nice if people who were visting the talkpage, and *thinking* about challenging some kind of standing consensus, could also add their own "notch to the stick" retroactively. So for example, the current tally at the RfC on whether to rewrite the 'many were false' statement, is roughly on the order of option#1 (~45% ~19) 'many were false', opt#3or4 (~25% ~7+5) 'relatively many false per fact-checkers' or opt#6 (~10% ~2+3) 'many characterized as false', opt#2or0 (~20% ~8+1) remove 'false'. Which to me at least, indicates there is sufficient support that the sentence needs improving (just disagreement on how to do so), that it will probably come up again in six months, even if it does not get changed this month. And by leaving a placeholder for a future discussion six months hence, and allowing wikipedians who missed the formal RfC to retroactively 'add' their notvotes into a separate tally-column, it might even be plausible to achieve consensus just by keeping the table of nose-counts updated. Recording the numeric outcome would be a bit difficult, but might help people agree to work towards consensus in the meantime, or at minimum, solidify the reasons *why* opposition keeps cropping up. Too much work for most articles, but I suspect Donald Trump is an exception which will justify the bookkeeping effort. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC) 1. Tallies would in fact undermine NOTDEMOCRACY in my opinion. I did the tallies for that one RfC, but that was a one-time, ad hoc, special situation where I wanted to consider early close. That's quite a difference from tallies as matter of routine, and there would rightly be a ton of pushback on that. Anyway, nobody would be likely to sign up for that job when I move on, and really the only reason I'm still there is that no new current event has called my name. If features of the list go moribund after a while, that could threaten the continued existence of the list itself. 2. Datestamps would be unjustifiable data redundancy. Any interested party can click the link and scroll to the bottom of the discussion (or the bottom of the close box, where one exists). 3. Notches/sticks would also undermine, if not violate, NOTDEMOCRACY. The fact that I would prefer something has no connection to whether I can make a strong case for it, so it's pointless for me to state that I would prefer it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Please don't proxy vote for another user

This was entirely inappropriate, so I have reverted it. See WP:TPNO and WP:TPO.- MrX 00:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:TPO and was transparent about my action. This was obviously an editor inexperienced with the RfC process who listed their rationale and suggestion in a new section. Note that my move was not partisan and I would have done the same for a supporting voice. However you were entirely correct to revert me: I should have contacted the user instead of copying their position myself, but I had forgotten that we had a way to open talk pages for IP users. I have now taken that path. — JFG ^talk 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move

Hi. Why did you choose to propose the move that didn't get any support in a previous discussion where you suggested it, instead of proposing a move ("Alleged..." or the similar "Allegations of...") that got support in the same previous discussion where you suggested it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bob K31416: I felt that the proposed title is more WP:PRECISE, by naming the source of allegations. Also, placing the emphasis on "reports" better reflects the article contents, which talk mainly about the intelligence reports and various reactions to them, rather than the (alleged) hacks or other interference tactics themselves. — JFG ^talk 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:World_Bank#Apply

Thanks for being patient with your access request. It should be processed relatively soon. Please let me know if you no longer think you need access. --JustBerry (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)