Huntster
 Archives | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Atlas problems
editSorry about the Atlas stuff, its because the Atlas family was marked as a weapon due to its short career as an ICBM, and my bot ran with the idea for the variants. I spotted the problem and fixed the parent yesterday, but didn't notice its children had bern changed. Thanks for fixing Vicarage (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
starfighter
editIt got changed in a big job because it was a "fighter", which is an aircraft type. I'll remove that Vicarage (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Reordering items
editI was thinking for some time whenever to start automatically reordering items based on ranks (e.g. preferred->normal->deprecated), but you seem to have different idea. Could you please explain your reasoning? Ghuron (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ghuron: Generally based on the date of publication, unless there's some abstract overriding reason in a particular case. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Year, but mass (P2067) statements use the same article as a reference (but has different values, probably due to recalculation from M⊙ to Mj) Ghuron (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ghuron: Oh! I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what was being asked. I tend to place "good" values at the bottom because they are typically later values, as again I try to order chronologically. In that example's particular case, it was simply a habitual change based on that. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds a little counter-intuitive. Don't we want the best (or latest) measurements to be at the top and available at a glance? Ghuron (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ghuron: It might seem that way on the surface, but it aids in future simplicity for non-bot operators. If values get ordered chronologically now, then it rarely needs to be addressed in the future as new publications would necessarily get added to the end of the pile. It also visually shows the progression of research as methods improve. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think this only applies to quantitative values, right? Ghuron (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ghuron: It might seem that way on the surface, but it aids in future simplicity for non-bot operators. If values get ordered chronologically now, then it rarely needs to be addressed in the future as new publications would necessarily get added to the end of the pile. It also visually shows the progression of research as methods improve. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- This sounds a little counter-intuitive. Don't we want the best (or latest) measurements to be at the top and available at a glance? Ghuron (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ghuron: Oh! I'm sorry, I misinterpreted what was being asked. I tend to place "good" values at the bottom because they are typically later values, as again I try to order chronologically. In that example's particular case, it was simply a habitual change based on that. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Year, but mass (P2067) statements use the same article as a reference (but has different values, probably due to recalculation from M⊙ to Mj) Ghuron (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
rocket series
editAn instance of rocket series (Q111722634) is a series of rocket models, so an instance of an instance of rocket series (Q111722634) is a rocket model, which is not a physical object. An instance of group of artificial physical objects (Q66661745) is a group of physical objects, so an instance of an instance of group of artificial physical objects (Q66661745) is a physical object. Thus the two classes should not be in a subclass of (P279) relationships. I have reverted your change. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)