User talk:BilCat

NOT RETIRED

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

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

A Baby-vs-Bathwater question

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

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

My apologies for missing this and not responding earlier, the Weapons of the Vietnam War aeticle. One of the IP guy's moves. Anmccaff (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A318

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AR-15 page

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

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

Douglas A2D Skyshark

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

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

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up,

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

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Piasecki 16h-1A-1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Piasecki 16h1-a.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding edit to Boeing 707 article

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

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

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

Canberra-class landing helicopter dock

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your "atheism is harmful" userbox

Hi, BilCat. I recently stumbled on your userbox User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful (no longer on your userpage, but appearing on several other editors'), and spent some time mulling over whether to nominate it for deletion. I read your note in the documentation, and read the September 2010 MfD on it and its corresponding antitheist template. I realized that I didn't see a problem with the antitheist template but did see a problem with the antiätheist template. Given that I am myself a theist, I was surprised by my own reaction, but ultimately I figured out the difference that was bothering me: Religion refers to a social phenomenon, whereas atheism refers to a philosophical/theological view. I don't think the "religion is harmful" box is problematic, but I think a "theism is harmful" box would be. Because there is a difference between seeing a box that criticizes a group/movement/phenomenon/etc. of which you are a part and seeing a box that criticizes a value that you personally hold. The former is a basic part of expressing any sort of ideological view, and—as I'm sure you'd agree—if an editor can't handle seeing that, then this isn't the place for them. The latter, however, is far less integral to reasoned discourse, and risks making editors feel unwelcome and contributing to senses of division and ill-will. For that reason, and given that your stated goal with this userbox was to provide a counterweight to the "religion is harmful" box, I was wondering if you would consider changing it to read "... that irreligion is harmful ..." or "... that the atheist movement is harmful ...". That, I think, would be a more logical response to the idea that religion is harmful.

(A note: While looking into this, I did find one userbox—User:Crazysane/Userboxes/Evolution—that explicitly criticizes theism as opposed to religion. Its creator has been inactive for three and a half years, so I thought I'd talk to you first before seeing if I can rouse him from his slumber. I'll be leaving him a talkpage note presently, but I doubt he'll respond, so I'll just take it to MfD after a week or so has passed.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I honestly don't see that hair as worth splitting. If others who are currently using my box are happy with it, that's fine with me. If it gets taken to MFD and they want to defend it, that's up to them. - BilCat (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for you help

Thankyou for helping to split and correct my mistake on spliting the GE9X article I'm still junior on wikipedia for splitting and merging article. I'm appreciate your help in this article,thank you very much :D I wish you could help me to complete this article at future --Aaa830 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Scaled Composites Stratolaunch

I thought the pic was fair use?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Marc Lacoste: Not since it's been rolled out, at least that's my understanding. I'm not an expert on US fair-use law, or any law for that matter, so feel free to ask someone else, or to challenge the deletion on Commons. I won't contest it. - BilCat (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

no of course you're perfectly right i forgot about the rollout :) --Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fair-use gives me a.headache :) - BilCat (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

That particular IP seems to have a long history of removing legitimate third party sources from articles and then leaving tags all over the place because they have no refs. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:VANDTYPES. This is not a content dispute, I have warned him that this is vandalism and will be treated as such. Further help on that article would be appreciated. - Ahunt (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I've had a run-in with the IP before. Obviously not a new user, and probably a blocked one at some point, given their tendency to edit war. I'm not sure I can be much help on this one, but if they keep edit warring, semi-protection may be an option. - BilCat (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

He just isn't giving up. His latest is to tag it with a fake AfD. I have asked MilborneOne to semi it for a while. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Scouting

That's another thanks I'm far from sure was thankworthy, TBH, especially since I think I've made the same mistake on the 207 twice, now... (Not to say I don't appreciate the occasional thank, but...maybe save 'em for what's really worth it? :D ) Forrest Gump ^{ooh, chocolates!} 02:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The thanks was for catching your own mistake. We all make them, but sometimes we're worse at admitting them. But in your defense, it is a confusing development history. - BilCat (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Gliding

Thank you for yor appreciation. It has gone quiet, but just in case, you might wish to make your view clear with an Oppose comment JMcC (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jmcc150: Thanks. I really hadn't decided yet, as I was waiting to see if the OP could respond with adequate proof the sport isn't the primary topic. He doesn't even appear to understand what a primary topic is, much less what's required to prove or disprove it. I've commented accordingly. - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Haitian Standard French listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haitian Standard French. Since you had some involvement with the Haitian Standard French redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Change to page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Blimp

You removed a reference to a movie The Junkman that the blimp was part of the movie. The movie title was highlighted and the blimp reference is in the plot description on the movie page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Caryeastwood (talk • contribs)

@Caryeastwood: Please read and follow WP:IPC. - BilCat (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the IWI NEGEV and TAVOR

I understand that there is no evidence that the NEGEV and TAVOR are acronyms but IWI themselves named the two weapons as the "TAVOR" and "NEGEV". So I presumed that it should be named after the company's given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun Lover (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Phobetor/Poltergeist

How are these two super-earths not relevant for inclusion into the list of discovered and relevant super-earths? 2001:2002:51E3:8007:B66D:83FF:FE0E:C298 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

For one, you didn't cite reliable sources. That, along with the bad writing/grammar, gave the appearance of vandalism. Please cite your sources, as Wikipedia can't be used to source itself. Thanks. - BilCat (talk)

Military transport aircraft

1. "era is primary decade of development/initial production" : can you provide a reference? I thought active at the same time will be a good definition of "same era" 2. "MTOW isn't the only measure of capability". of course not (eg, I didn't compare civil derivatives with really different airfield requirements and loading config), but it's nearly the best. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's the way it's been used in practice as a way of keeping the lists manageable. Also, you're adding Y-8 and Y-9 indiscriminately, sometimes when they're already listed as related. One is a development of the other, so both really are not needed. Also, adding MTOWs, spelt out or not, just adds clutter. Also, I don't think it's helpful to mix four-engine and twins, props and fans, tactical.and strategic types, etc. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

An habit isn't a rule, there are many counter examples. Y-8 and Y-9 have each their article, like the C-130 and C-130J, so can be linked separately, especially if a design is in between their time of development. At first I wasn't adding MTOW other than in comments, but I thought it would be better for the reader to understand why a design is comparable, but I can revert to putting it in comments. Configuration isn't listed in similarities : Role, Era, and Capability. I avoid mixing tactical and strategic types.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The output states "Aircraft of comparable role, configuration and era". And I'm not talking about a habit only - we (WPAIR members) have had discussions on several different talk pages over the years about what belongs in the "Comparable" field. I can't hope to find them all, but the archives at WT:AIR and the the style guide would probably have most of them if you want to get a feel for what's been discussed. - BilCat (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

oOoO I knew I had read something like that! I'll amend the template:aircontent and WP:Air/PC.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Changes to WP:Air/PC requires consensus, and the notes in the template need to match. --Finlayson (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

can we discuss russian armed forces

we cannot use an outdated incorrect number with one source while there is a real correct current number with several sources, per consistency do you see any other case in wikipedia? 83.185.80.173 (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)