User talk:Huntster/Archive 11

Is this robotic arm a permanent iss robotic Arm or just for a short time on ISS

Hi huntser, can you please help me in this matter. i wrote about GITAI S1 Robotic Arm Tech Demo as a tech demo on this wikipedia page CRS 23. Though it is a tech demo, if it will remain aboard ISS, then this mission will be a ISS assembly mission like the CRS 21 and CRS 22.If it is not permanent iss arm, then i will be relieved. but if yes then i have to do lot of changes on these pages on wikipedia. Thus it will be needed to create a new topic for this arm and then it must be added to ISS assembly page and then we have to write about it on all robotic arm page about iss like canadarm2, era, dextre, strela, Mobile Servicing System, etc. this thing seems to me a bit confusing. so please share your views sir. Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, this is purely a tech demo and experiment, just like Robonaut, SPHERES, and the other semi-autonomous robotic assistants that have been tried on the ISS. There is no comparison between this and the existing, work-oriented robot arms on the station. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

oh it is not a iss assembly. then i am not making a separate page for this. i am grateful to you for helping me.Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

unexpected element on mars 2020 perseverance rover

File:Mars Perseverance SIF 0075 0673610024 890EBY N0032430SRLC07018 0000LUJ.png

can you tell what is this? l left this on discussion here many months ago but didnt got a clear response.Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, to me, it looks like the entrance to the bit carousel of the sample caching system. If you look at the video on https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/25005/mars-2020-perseverance-rover-sample-caching-system/ at about the 1:30 mark...the entrance I'm referring to looks a little different there, but everything *surrounding* it, including the spring (part of the cover door), the curve of the white background (the carousel housing), and the position of the silver component at bottom left (one of the four drill/carousel interface positioning guides, I believe) in the image all match up to the video. Here it is from another angle: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/archive/PIA24497_A.gif. I'd put my confidence level at 90%. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

thanks for giving the other angleChinakpradhan (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

confusion on missing flight path of Ingenuity

hello Huntster, https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/where-is-the-rover/ has released the 12th flight path but in just at the termination of that flight the flight path is missing how to solve it Chinakpradhan (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, you have to click the layers tab on the left, and choose the helicopter flight path and waypoints. Also, you can click this link that I made. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No you judged the wrong question. I mean I am a regular uploader of this image File:Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover Traverse Path And Ingenuity Helicopter Flight Path.jpg and I use the guidelines you said above. My question was after making the the changes you said above, if you zoom in near the helicopter in that mode Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see there is a gap in the last leg of the flight Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If the flight has terminated where the flight path is ending then how can nasa and jpl say this to be a roundtrip flight if the airfield is new and if not was this a mistake made by nasa as you can see a File:Visiting Vehicle Launches, Arrivals and Departures after Nauka docking.png after seeing this page Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If the flight has terminated where the flight path is ending then how can nasa and jpl say this to be a roundtrip flight if the airfield is new and if not was this a mistake made by nasa as you can see a File:Visiting Vehicle Launches, Arrivals and Departures after Nauka docking.png after seeing this page Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am extremely sorry I didn't told the question correctly on first comment Chinakpradhan (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, no worries, I just didn't notice that little discrepancy in the graphic. I think whoever updated the map simply didn't connect the waypoints properly. You could send them a message at https://mars.nasa.gov/feedback/ and see if they can fix it, but considering the segment is so very tiny, it isn't going to show up in any graphic you upload unless it's zoomed in really far. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Chinakpradhan (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I think they need to do that if they will show the flight 13 route. And they change the maps very late where is sol 180 and where is todayChinakpradhan (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Though as you said I gave them the feedback. One more thing I have seen that they update the map for a flight before the succesive flight as seen here. Both were posted on the same dayChinakpradhan (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

oh i found out the problem the thing done wrong is the location of helicopter's pointer's location a user wrote in wikipedia "The roundup trip about 235m northeast and back. The return path was laid about 5m aside to allow another attempt of paired images collection for a stereo imagery. As a result the helicopter landed about 25m east from the takeoff point.With help from thomas_appere's rectified color images, I now have the rough locations of #MarsHelicopter's shadow in all 8 color images on twitter. See also a map from Twitter and another map published at unmannedspaceflight.com" they need to fix the pointer only. matter solved.Chinakpradhan (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so the NASA map is just very simplified. Might be another something you can request they fix. Good catch. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Changing from 5 to 6

About Falcon 9 Flight 125 landing‎, Launch of Falcon 9 Flight 125‎, Preflight checks of Falcon 9 Flight 125‎, Rollout of Falcon 9 Flight 125‎, and Static fire test of Falcon 9 Flight 125‎, can you change from 5 to 6, please? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FEA8:D55C:5200:1818:20A4:5844:727A (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully you are watching this page, because pinging an IPv6 is pointless. I will make the changes you requested this time, but in the future please do not pre-make categories. Not only do you risk wasting your time in making them, only to have them deleted because they're empty, but we don't know if we'll even get any freely licensed material to fill them. It is absolutely better to, at first, let all images collect in the root-level Flight category, and when enough build up to warrant subcategories, only then should you create them. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Launch of Inspirati4n

About that, can you take the picture and put on Launch of Falcon 9 Flight 126 and delete Launch of Inspirati4n, please? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2607:FEA8:D562:5800:3DB7:E645:626C:66E7 (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Huntster (t @ c) 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

File:European Data Relay System laser communication terminal.jpg

Hi! I was looking at File:European Data Relay System laser communication terminal.jpg and I'm not sure it's OK to have it on Commons. Not all DLR pictures are CC-BY, only those explicitely shared as it. This one comes from ESA website with a "copyright DLR/TESAT" statement. vip (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Don-vip, that's curious. Since it is not stated on the site, and I can no longer find any evidence of it being released, I'm fine with it being deleted. I'll send it through speedy. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! vip (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this free or non free imaging camera

Is this soyuz camera that took this image provides only non free images or like nasa's pd notice free images Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinakpradhan, no, images by Roscosmos are not freely licensed and are not compatible with Commons unless specifically noted. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

„Ingenuity”’s Base Station

Hi, Huntster! Just noticed your GR of the File:Ingenuity Helicopter Base Station on Perseverance Rover.jpg, commented by you as „Exact or scaled-down duplicate” of the File:PIA23968-MarsPerseveranceRover-HelicopterBase-20210120.jpg. Last month I worked with both files: they illustrate the article I'm improving. I don't remember whether they were of different size (it matters less), but I remember more firmly that they had different decription, and the that comments in the version you've deleted were extended.

Seeking for the old text, I went to the file you converted to the redirect, I found no history of its edits! It has only one record:

   curprev 13:14, 26 September 2021‎ Huntster talk contribs‎ 77 bytes +77‎ Redirecting to duplicate file thank Tag: New redirect

meaning that you created the file with this name today. How can it be? For 11+ years on wiki I merged dozens of pairs, converting one of files into redirect, but in all these cases each newly created redirect kept its old history. Please help me to restore the access to the real File:Ingenuity Helicopter Base Station on Perseverance Rover.jpg with all its history of edits. Thank you in advance. Cherurbino (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, the descriptions on both files were exactly the same.

Sorry, it is not true, (1) see here the comment about the place holder and (2) category that you did not restore. Cherurbino (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The only thing different between the texts is that the deleted file (which was only 1,024 × 1,365) linked to JPL feeder pages, whereas the kept file links straight to the JPL Photojournal. As for the second part, the smaller photo was deleted and replaced with a redirect so that the filename will still function for sister wikis. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

At your request, I've restore the description history (here), but understand this is not part of a normal deletion process. I'm not sure what you mean by "For 11+ years on wiki I merged dozens of pairs, converting one of files into redirect, but in all these cases each newly created redirect kept its old history." This is not normally done. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Normally merging files supposes merging the history of their edits. Some years ago I won the sue in ru-wiki when the article I started was converted to redirect, then redirect was deleted, and after that its contents was restored as a contribution of editor who started 'his' article at the same name.

The history of file edits may disappear in a single legal case: when the file is legally deleted after the necessary public procedures. The uploader of that file is not me, it is @Chinakpradhan, and I don't see necessary warnings at his talk page. Does in mean that his contribution was deleted bypassing warning him about it? Cherurbino (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, I'm also curious why you restored a lower resolution version of the exact same image at File:Location of the base radio station for Ingenuity helicopter at one of the hollows of Perseverance rover.jpg. Do you for some reason dislike high resolution images? I don't understand. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Is your curiosity based on some regulations of Wikipedia, or this is a private interest? I'm more concerned with the fact that as a result of such actions I lost some my contributions, including the edits I consider necessary for this illustration. Anyway, I'll satisfy your curiosity: the answer is NO, size and resolution are not in the first place among my criteria for selecting illustrations for articles.

Thank you for restoring these edits, and I regret that your 'merging' of the contents was not full. You did not restore my improvements; actually, you deleted them from the description, while the 'watchlist' option which could attract my attention to it disappeared because the entire file was deleted. Cherurbino (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, let me address the two issues in turn:

1) The file that was deleted was an identical lower-resolution copy of the remaining file. Its deletion is a procedural housekeeping issue. There is no "merging" of files happening here. The duplicate file is deleted in favour of the higher resolution file, and any data worth transferring is done manually. You may be thinking of history merging that happens sometimes on Wikipedia, but that rarely happens on Commons. I also do not know what you mean by "You did not restore my improvements", as I do not see any significant differences between the two description pages aside from the URLs (which are redundant to the Photojournal page). No data that has any bearing on the image was lost, but of course you may edit the remaining description page as you wish, just as anyone can. Further, you make mention of "sue" and "legal case", which is concerning, because none of this is a legal issue.

sorry, English is not my native language. I rely upon the consultations of NASA specialists before writing critically important comments in Wiki - just like I did recently. I explain them my requests: "I write for Wikipedia, where people wait for exact words - and they help. Of course, I did not mean courts and barristers. I meant a synonym, a broad sence of 'appeal/complaint' posted in the 'questions to administrators.' Cherurbino (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

2) Regarding File:Location of the base radio station for Ingenuity helicopter at one of the hollows of Perseverance rover.jpg, my curiosity stems simply from the fact that you reverted a higher resolution copy (3,456 × 4,608) to the original lower resolution image (1,201 × 1,602), which doesn't make sense to me. It is not incorrect or based on some "regulation", but it is certainly not a good practice to use something other than the best resolution image available. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply. Now I shall tell you more upon my motives of concern about this illustration.

If instead of sizing/resolution you asked me in more direct way: 'What picture of these two you prefer and why?', then I would answer: NONE. Both deserve a speed deletion, because they misguide readers of Wikipedia. They tell lie, they point at the empty place saying 'here is the station'.

It's a long history. Read the words 'the upper, gold-colored box in 'the 'official description' and look at the picture. The yellow box is below (lie No.1)! And this box is a module of the RIMFAX underground laser, not of the radio station! (lie No.2)

NASA received much complaints about it. But instead of uploading the photo of this board (see how it looks; the AIAA license does not allow me to upload it here) they drew the 'blue circle' and attached is as the supplementary photo for this PIA catalog number. Here goes lie No. 3, because instead of 'Base Station' everybody sees unmated cables above a piece of scratched cardboard (see another external illustration of mine No.1, no.2 and no.3).

Attempts to urge NASA for replacement of the picture that I took this summer, were in vain. Thus, the only thing remaining for me is to add comments, that the photo shows a placeholder for the station, not the station itself. These were the motives of my complaints, not the 'count of edits'))). Best regards, Cherurbino (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

UPD: Re: 2) Regarding [[:File:Locati…… you reverted a higher resolution copy' - some hi-res images contain a lot of unnecessary secondary details. If you consider my reasons wrong - of course, you may revert back. BTW (just noticed that), the Talk page of another image, converted to the redirect to this file contained my full description of the story of the missing 'base station'. Maybe I must repeat it in the 'new' file, or better make and upload a crop showing only the hollow in the best resolution. Cherurbino (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, sorry for the delay in responding, had to take care of some real life stuff. Starting top to bottom:

1) A *caption*. Captions are an absolute pain because they are fairly hidden in the interface. So, I apologize for that. As for the category, Category:Technical components, devices and mechanisms of Ingenuity was renamed in mid-August to Category:Components of the Ingenuity helicopter. Different name, but same category.

2) "English is not my native language." I completely understand, as well as your explanation of "appeal/complaint". I appreciate it.

3) "then I would answer: NONE." Yes, I understand. It is painfully not ideal, and I only wish a better representative photograph was available. Going back to the caption issue, I would recommend using annotations instead, as they will be more widely visible to users and require less explanation since they are overlaid on the image itself. If you'd like, I'll add one to the cardboard area stating "Placeholder for the Ingenuity telecommunications station". I would add one to the gold box as well, but I have questions. According to the documentation at https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/mars-electra-lite-uhf-transceiver, the Electra-Lite UHF is the communications link to the Mars orbiters. How does it play a part for RIMFAX? This graphic suggests that the RIMFAX electronics are on the opposite side of the MMRTG from our photo.

Thank you for your comments and investigations! You are right that RIMFAX has only one 'warm box', where the picture you brought shows. The www address on the two identical metallic-color boxes is read WWW.JMCSD.COM, presently redirecting to the matthey.com. Batteries are among the products of this diversified business. If this guess is true, then the role of these small boxes is to heat two identical blocks, each storing the Electra-Lite UHF, that you victorously attributed )). Conclusions: both RIMFAX and the Base Station are merely the 'upper neighbours' of the abovenamed equipment, each in its hollows - one in the left and another in the right hollow. Conceptually radar and radio have no relation to each other. Cherurbino (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, yes, I agree with your conclusion. I've gone ahead an added basic annotations to the main image here, so please check and adjust them as you see fit. I love digging in to 'mysteries' like this one. Thanks for the pleasant collaboration; I enjoy working with folks on anything space related. :) — Huntster (t @ c) 19:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

4) "some hi-res images contain a lot of unnecessary secondary details." I understand, and I have no stake in this issue. I was just curious as to your rationale for the revert. I personally disagree, but I will not undo your decision there.

On my side - I just undid my yesterday's revert myself. I prepared a new image instead (from two crops, one for each side), but just now I'm short of time for the new uploads. Cherurbino (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

5) "the Talk page of another image..." I see that it is located at File talk:Location of the base radio station for Ingenuity helicopter at one of the hollows of Perseverance rover.jpg. You could certainly copy the explanation to File talk:PIA23968-MarsPerseveranceRover-HelicopterBase-20210120.jpg if you wanted. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Hi, Huntster! Sorry for disappearing without notice. These days I was extremely overloaded with my two (!) nominations to good articles. Yesterday one of them (Jezero crater) was adopted while the second (Ingenuity) is still pending and hanging. I see that you are fully aware of all the specifics of the 'Base Station' issue, thus if the time matters I fully trust you to perform all the actions that you deem necessary in connection with the restoration of comments on the affected articles. If not, then I shall do it myself after my nomination shall be resolved.

At this time I have another question to you which arose suddenly yesterday. In the midday I prepared three files for upload to Commons. The procedure passed two steps - files were physically uploaded, the preliminary source / licensing data was filled and I was on the third step fillng the names, descriptions etc. when the electricity lockdown occured with the subsequent loss of the sectors on HDD which contained the browser cache. So, 3-4 hours later, after restoring access to the Internet and to my browser, I could not resume the upload from the middle and had to start it again.

Now all my three new uploads are OK

• File:Ingenuity coaxial rotor assembly (English insriptions).png (2,880 × 2,880 pixels.)
• File:Ingenuity coaxial rotor assembly (clean drawing for localisation).png (a 1,920 × 2,880 pixels’ cropout from the previous)
• File:Ingenuity coaxial rotor assembly (2019).png

Before uploading it took me 1,5 hours in the morning to prepare the first two files: I took the largest resolution in the JPL storage and cleared its seemingly white background from the artifacts. It helped to decrease the size of cropped version from 5.7 Mb to 5.429.

However, a few hours later on the en-wiki page of 'Ingenuity' I found that Drbogdan uploaded the 468 × 468 thumbnail of my 2,880 × 2,880 file

• File:PIA24812-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-UpperSwashplateAssembly-20210928.jpg

Question: what is your deletion policy in the case of such duplicates? Presumably, the Commons upload engine did not allow Drbogdan to use the hi-res picture because it was already uploaded by me. However for the abovementioned reasons I finished my upload with the 3-hour delay, and his thumbnail has the earlier timestamp. Cherurbino (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, congrats on the present (and, I'm certain, near future) GAs! Yes, looks like Drbogdan simply managed to upload that image while you were working on yours. The Mediawiki system only detects duplicate uploads that are the exact same (aka, they have the same MD5 hash), so that's why there was no warning regardless of who was first. Whenever you come across exact or lower resolution duplicates, just tag them with {{Duplicate}} and the appropriate parameters and an admin will come along and handle it. That said, these are technically not exact duplicates, since the labels and lettering are different between each. To keep it simple, I would write a note on Doc's talk page asking if he'd mind his image being deleted in favour of your larger version. I've worked with Drbogdan on Commons for a long time now, and he is always amenable to such requests. Once he's agreed, let me know and I'll take the necessary actions. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Huntster, thank you for good and encouraging words about GA articles, and let me share with you the idea with my cropped file #2. Is there somebody at Commons who can clone the <imagemap> syntax (used, for example with the File:JoshuaReynoldsParty.jpg) to propose this image as a universal template, allowing everybody to display the translations of A, B, C and D? Three years ago I could certainly clone this template myself (only four polygons, and it shall work!), but today the charge of by batteries is too low for that (((. Cherurbino (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Cherurbino, as far as I'm aware, the annotations do not use the internationalisation system. That said, users can either add translations to the image description page with their language template (ie {{Fr}}, {{De}}, etc), or to the Wiki articles themselves since the image simply has letters. One option you may want to consider (but is of course entirely optional) is changing the letters to numbers, which would be more universally useful to users of cyrillic, middle eastern, asian, etc languages. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I see a bifurcation somewhere in the middle of the dialogue: you mean the annotations within the main template for the image while I statred speaking about the contents of the Talk page of the image. Since I really have no time for finishing this case, I propose to make the pause in this thread. Cherurbino (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)