User talk:Huntster

The Sizes, Shapes, Albedos, and Colors of Cometary Nuclei

I saw you canceled my edit, no problem with that, but do you know which book this element comes from?

It's a "book chapter", so It must come from a book, isn't it?

I'm asking because It causes an error on my local Wikipedia and It requires the P1433 element

Thank you.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacOS Weed (talk • contribs) at 20:16, 18 July 2025 (UTC).

MacOS Weed: No item had been created for the book itself. I've since done so: Comets II (Q135414520). Please ensure that the item is no longer showing an error for your local Wikipedia. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You're the best, It's fixed. Thanks! =) MacOS Weed (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Astronaut mission (P450)

Hi Huntster, I saw your comment on the discussion page of astronaut mission (P450) and that you moved the Mike Fincke's astronaut mission (P450) to the member of the crew of (P5096). Do you know if there's been any official decision about whether or not to use the property "member of the crew of"? Thanks. Nicht (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nicht: No, there was no response. If you want to restore it, I don't care, but it's pointless duplication. I would nominate the property for deletion, but I simply don't have the time or resources to transfer everything by hand (I don't use bots). — Huntster (t @ c) 16:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Huntster What a mess — I had even noticed that people were using Astronaut mission only with spacecraft, while Member of the crew of included both spacecraft and Expeditions, so I thought that was the decision. Maybe it depends on the examples in Astronaut mission, Marcos Pontes didn't take part in any Expeditions, so they're not mentioned. I'm fine with either way, I don't mind, the important thing would be to decide officially to avoid accidentally undoing work done by others, which unfortunately happens to me quite often. Thanks a lot for your reply, Huntster Nicht (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Aero Spacelines Super Guppy

According to en:WP, this is clearly a low wing a/c. The same applies to the KC-97. Uli Elch (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, since there seems to be no authoritative source calling it either (at least none that I can find). Visually the wing is much higher up than what you'd consider most low-wing aircraft to have. However, I'll refrain from changing it. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your answer to Wikidata:Project chat#Merge inquest Special:Diff/2384052358! Utfor (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Vehicle/member of the crew of

You reverted my edit adding the vehicle parameter to Polaris Dawn. I don’t necessarily disagree with you. However, without adding vehicle, we’re getting a flag on the astronaut pages saying: “Values of member of the crew of statements should be instances of vehicle (or of a subclass of it), but Polaris Dawn currently isn't.”

What needs to be done to fix this? RickyCourtney (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: It's a matter of adding an exception to the Property. I'm at work right now and not in a position to make the changes, but will work on this later. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Q134166256#P5066

Your moving the statement to operating temperature (P5066) have created a new constraint error

Any suggestions what do to about it? I do not know enough about electronics to feel comfortable reverting it Trade (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi:--Trade (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC) Do you have any solutions?

@Trade: Sometimes there's nothing to be done until the appropriate data is found. In this case, the source only provided the maximum temperature, but certainly, even for a processor, there must be a minimum design temperature it can safely operate at. The flag is not an error, just a suggestion that there should be two values. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The temperature listed at Q134166256#P5066 is the official "maximum safe operating temperature" by the manufacturer

From my understanding there is no such a thing such as an official "minimum safe operating temperature" for computing parts

So i suppose i should just list the "minimum safe operating temperature" as being novalue? Trade (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Yes, that would probably work. CPUs do have issues at extremely low temperatures (like below -100 C from what I've read) but yes, not something that's usually published. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you know any databases that actually lists these low temperatures? Trade (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any databases, no. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:32, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"child name string"

Would you so support such a property? Trade (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

See my reply in that thread. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but the ability to insert a general string into any given property would be more useful. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Having a generic strinc value could very easily be abused by others in cases where making a new item is the appropriate thing to do

We already have issues with people setting a statement to novalue or unknown value and just use"object named as" as a qualifier to avoid making new items

I am not saying it's a terrible idea. But it needs to be a restricted privilege, not a right Trade (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, it would need to be better fleshed out, but anything can (and is) abused, so that really shouldn't be the primary sticking point. The problem with saying "just make a new item", especially with any given child of an individual, is that most will inevitably fail Wikidata:Notability. Now, I personally believe the policy is overly restrictive and strays from (at least as I recall) Wikidata's original mission of being a database of everything, but it exists and we have to keep it in mind. Plus, realistically, there are plenty of people where there simply isn't enough information about them to really flesh out a new item. Allowing simple text strings for Properties sidesteps those issues. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Strange rank

Hi,

I'm not sure to understand why you used the deprecated rank here Special:Diff/2038213878 (and on other items). Since other statements already have preferred rank, it doesn't change the best rank values. Also, this value is a superclass of other values which is weird and contradictory, being a "star" - lato sensu - is both preferred and deprecated...

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, it makes no sense to keep "star" and similar superseded values in such items, as best practices hold that the most specific and non-duplicative values be used. However, folks here tend to have a thing against removing values and prefer that outdated or superseded material be deprecated instead. Regardless, this has been a concession in star items long before I started getting involved in them. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

sorry but I'm even more confused.

Using the most specific value is not always a good thing (for instance, we never use man (Q8441) or adult human (Q9584157) but only the more general human (Q5)). It can make sense to keep multiple values (including from the same class, and especially when there is references). Here, I don't care much about the values, I'm more focused on the deprecated rank. Being a yellow star does not and cannot mean that this is *not* a star, it's illogical. It seems to be an abuse of the ranking system...

Could you point me to the discussion where is has been decided to do that?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, I agree with the deprecation thing, it's simply something that's been done for a very long time. No discussion that I'm aware of. If this is something you truly think is an issue and should be stopped, I don't mind doing so. I will, however, not leave redundant items in place. Regarding the most specific value thing, it is good unless, again, well-established precedent exists which calls for another approach. In this case, using something other than human (Q5) would literally break who-knows-how-many systems in operation. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:47, 31 December 2025 (UTC)