User talk:Huntster

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

TUSC token: 364a8706895df1c9a2646a9e29319e7a[edit]

I am the proud owner of a TUSC account!

Another Celestia image[edit]

I see you have voted on Commons:Deletion requests/File:2004 XR190.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:95P.png. There is a third general Celestia image by the same uploader: Commons:Deletion requests/File:2060 Chiron.jpg

Bad general Celestia image (with asteroid texture), not an artist impression.


Hi Huntster,
Can you get the OTRS for File:Cygnus Wall.jpg and File:Barnard 33.jpg..? I got the cc of his mail sent to OTRS queue.. - T H (here I am) 13:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Herald: The Barnard image was handled by another agent, and I've taken care of the Cygnus Wall image. Thanks. Huntster (t @ c) 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again.. Is File:Eclipse 2010.jpg available? -- - T H (here I am) 08:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The Herald, hey, I'm sorry to say that I'm no longer with OTRS. I simply didn't have the time to devote to it, and they require a minimum level of activity. My apologies, but give it a little while another someone else will handle it. Huntster (t @ c) 16:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I have only info-en right in OTRS. Can you ping someone? -- - T H (here I am) 02:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The Herald: You can check Category:Commons OTRS volunteers for active members. However, if you'll be patient, a volunteer *will* get to the ticket. Huntster (t @ c) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

MY updated images from NASA[edit]

Hi. I uploaded new versions of images from NASA, check these images I got.

I uploaded the large images from NASA. Thanks. :) --Jcpag2012 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion requests for the stars (artist's impression not from SDO images at NASA)[edit]

I will vote these star images that not from NASA photos.

Bad general SDO image of the Sun from NASA, not an artist impression. --Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Jcpag2012, why are you notifying me of this? Also, please remember to sign your posts. Huntster (t @ c) 07:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Because they are not artist's impressions of it, I vote four pictures uploaded by Es08, who is uploading the Suns. Bad images from SDO, thanks for sure. :) --Jcpag2012 (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Allure of the Seas[edit]

Hi, Huntster! What the felps are you doing again? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1, Allure of the Seas was launched 20 November 2009, *not* in 2010. Yes, it had its maiden voyage and certifications, but that isn't how the category names are designed. Please do not move it back to 2010 without consensus. Huntster (t @ c) 14:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Are you sure? Can you check Category:Ships by name? I can help you if you want.--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
      • B. How to name the category

1.In general, name the category with the ship's name as painted on the vessel (when the picture was taken). Sample: This photo shows "Isla de Botafoc" in 2008. The category is named "Isla de Botafoc (ship, 1980)". This even if the ship had other names before and afterwards. 2.The general format for category titles is "<name of ship> (ship, <year>)". <year> is the year the ship was completed, see Category:Ships by year built for further information. Samples: "Golden Hind (ship, 1973)" or "Pacific Dawn (ship, 1991)". --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1: Yes, and Allure was launched in 2009, when her hull was completed. See Royal Caribbean's own press release about the launch, which in this case was her transfer out of the construction drydock. See also an article by Marine Reporter which mentions the launch date. Look, if you want to challenge this, that's fine. Perhaps the other folks working in ships will agree with you. But keep the category at its old name until such a time as there is agreement on this matter, okay? Huntster (t @ c) 14:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I make categories for ships everyday using [[:|Category:Ships by name]] under How to create a category for a ship, and Oasis of the Seas was launched on November 21, 2008. May I move the Category:Oasis of the Seas (ship, 2009) to Category:Oasis of the Seas (ship, 2008)? What do you think about it?--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1: Interesting conundrum! I hadn't noticed that. Yes, I would suggest it should be under "2008", but again it might be better to leave both at their old category names until others have weighed in. Huntster (t @ c) 14:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
        • The article in Wikipedia Allure of the Seas was written by me in much languages and I know that she was launched 2009, but we must write the year the ship was completed, then so are the rules,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Vision of the Seas at Pier 24 in Tallinn 2 August 2013.JPG, this is ‘my upload’ today, Vision of the Seas was launched 1997, but I write Category:Vision of the Seas (ship, 1998), is it correct? --PjotrMahh1 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

PjotrMahh1, I'm not going to dispute the 2010 in the name. Looking at a variety of other categories, I see this seems to have become the standard, though it didn't used to be that way. Guess I'm just behind the times. I've gone ahead and moved the "Aboard" category to 2010 as well. And yes, your image looks fine to me. Huntster (t @ c) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Huntster, regards,--PjotrMahh1 (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Boeing X-48[edit]

(Posted on other talk page) Hi Chesi, would you please stop making this edit to the X-48 category? The X-48B was a three engine aircraft, but the X-48C has only two engines. This is already reflected in their individual categories. Huntster (t @ c) 04:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, if you check in the specifications of the aircraft at powerplant is reported to have 3 × JetCat P200 turbojet 52 lbf (0.23 kN) thrust each, and that is reported in the Category:Trijets too. Chesipiero (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Chesipiero, those specifications are for the X-48B...the X-48C featured 2 × AMT Titan turbojets with 88.2 lbf (0.39 kN) thrust each. The article covers all variants in a single article, while we have separate categories for both physical aircraft. That lets us do different things categorically. Additionally, the article specifically says the -C model is "A modified, two-engine version of the X-48B intended to test a low-noise design", while our photographs clearly show it also having two engines. Thinking about it a little more, I'm beginning to think that all the physical characteristic categories should be moved to the individual X-48 variant categories. Huntster (t @ c) 18:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)