User talk:PhilipTerryGraham/Archive 3

This is an archive of topics discussed and commented on from November 2018 to the present, hosted on my talk page. To find a particular topic or discussion, it is recommended that you use the word search function in your browser. In a majority of browsers, including Google Chrome and Firefox, this can be accessed by pressing +. Discussions and comments are sorted and named for the day they were first published on my talk page. If you wish to find any contributions made to my talk page from the very first archived discussion on 28 February 2013 to before 24 April 2016, be sure to check my first archive. For any discussions started between 24 April 2016 and 23 November 2018, be sure to check my second archive.

(26 November 2018) Comment: Templates for discussion
Please don't switch list formatting, as ; for the reasons explained at WP:LISTGAP. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I was just frustrated that bullets were being used for purposes other than main points and votes. I'll refrain from doing so in the future. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 22:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(27 November 2018) Comment: Naming conventions (government and legislation)
See the recently-closed proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation), which is in the process of being enacted across the encyclopedia by people who aren't me. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps for this. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 06:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

(2 January 2019) Discussion: (486958) 2014 MU69
Stick your threats where the sunshine can't reach. I introduced a NASA refererence. I give a roden's hiny if you disagree with NASA. You should be blocked for deleting reliable references. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You broke the three-revert rule, and failed to discuss your changes opting instead to, after a talk page discussion had been started per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Telling me to "Stick [my] threats where the sunshine can't reach" is now the third decision you've made in bad faith in the span of over half an hour. That's pretty terrible! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you don't have the math skills to tell the difference between total length and length between lobe centers, then you are out of your depth. First you deny there are cited references, then you deny the references state 16 km (10 miles) and then you deny it is an update from NASA. Then yo delete repeatedly the referenced material and sTOopidly threaten me. If you can't take it when you are mistaken, then don't edit Wikipedia. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're trying to distract from your violations of Wikipedia policy by trying to provoke me with insults, but it's not gonna work. How about take a few deep breaths and try to act civil when discussing changes. I never denied that you were citing NASA, I was challenging a) whether or not it was contradictory to the updated dimensions also cited by NASA, which I now understand not to be the case, and b) whether or not it was important enough to be thrown into an infobox already overbolated with information. Surely it must've been possible to discuss this without acting the way you have decided to. Please just respect your fellow editors next time and try to discuss edits instead of edit warring, will ya? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The choice to perform an edit war in the face of the references was yours. I accept your non-apology. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read up on WP:BOLD, WP:CYCLE, and WP:QUO, and stop acting arrogant and talking condescendingly to other editors. You, but , so it should ideally go to discussion with the status quo intact until a consensus is reached. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no time to teach you simple additions, or the concept to read the reference before edit warring. It should suffice with reading the references that you kept deleting. I'm done with you and your arrogance. By the way take a look at Ownership of content now that you lean so heavily on wikilawyering so much over geometry and simple math. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You still don't seem to get that what you describe as "wikilawyering" is not about "geometry and simple math", it's about your behavior. I don't understand how you can expect to have a civil conversation and discussion with other editors when you are this disrespectful to them. Again, what was so wrong about starting a discussion instead of going on a tirade the way you did, and why should I be convinced that you're not gonna do this to other editors again? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

(18 January 2018) Discussion: File:Paper Mario Color Splash.jpg
Hi! You recently reverted my edit of the Paper Mario box art, saying that it was too different from the original box art's size. However, my image's aspect ratio is exactly the same as released for every single Wii U box art. So I'm having a hard time understanding the revert. Could you please explain? ~ Arkhandar (message me) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The logo was too far down; note the alignment of the words "Color splash" with Huey's handle. The size of the logo was made too large as well, and the Shy Guy on the left and the Rescue Squad Toads on the right were cropped out. A 5:7 ratio for Wii U key arts in Infobox video game is the closest whole number ratio to the 10.75 inch by 7.2 inch dimensions of the Wii U game packaging. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Shy Guys and Toads were cropped out because I scaled the artwork from Mario, but I can get that adjusted. As for the logo, it's in the exact same position as the official box art, so I don't quite see were's the issue. ~ Arkhandar (message me)
 * I saw your new version, but I'd invite you to try again and note the size of the logo relative to the width of the box art, and the alignment of "Color Splash" with huey's handle, and the position of "Paper Mario" underneath the arc of red paint produced by Mario's swinging paint hammer. Use this image courtesy of the Nintendo Wiki of the game's North American packaging as a reference. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 11:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference! I understand were the issue is coming from now. I was using the European box art as a reference instead of the North America. The positioning is slightly different between them. So both our POVs are correct I guess hahah I'm open to "correcting" it to the NA box if you'd like though, it's up to you. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 11:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(24 January 2019) Comment: Mosman Bay and Neutral Bay ferry services
Thank you for the request to rename Mosman Bay ferry services (numbered F6) to Mosman Bay ferry services. Earlier this week I had requested that as part of the submission of this article and the same for Neutral Bay ferry services they would be moved over the top of the relevant redirect pages but this was declined and I should submit them as review requests where the article would be moved over the redirect. In the case of the Mosman Bay request the submission was accepted a couple of days later but the approver instead of moving it over the redirect made up a new name for it. I was waiting for the result of the Neutral Bay one before again requesting a move for both of them. Thank you for starting this action. I will follow up any renames which will be necessary after the rename. Fleet Lists (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Heyo! So, there's this growing unease about the names of TFNSW's ferry routes as of late. An editor opposed the move to Mosman Bay ferry services on the grounds that names such as "Mosman ferry" would be more common and recognisable. Another editor pointed out the obvious fact that these have never been the official names of the services, but rather descriptors. Officially, it's simply "Neutral Bay" and "Mosman Bay". Stockton ferry services was moved by another editor to Stockton ferry service under the grounds that it was a single ferry, therefore the title should be singular. I'd suggest we get some sort of consensus around what to name these services at a venue such as the Maritime transport task force or the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, with a Request for Comment attached. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have expanded Talk:Mosman_Bay_ferry_services_(numbered_F6) to possibly cover all 8 Sydney Ferries routes. Perhaps you could leave pointers on the notice boards you mention to get larger coverage for this subject.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I currently have other things on my plate at the moment, nor do I have a real opinion on how the services are named. My focus is currently on writing up Bedin I, working Infobox star out and creating material for my Atlas Astronomica project. I'm confident that either you or somebody else just as qualified in transport topics can carry out the procedure faithfully. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(1 February 2019) Comment: Bedin I
Hi, I uploaded a slightly different image of Bedin 1 to Wikimedia Commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bedin_1_imaged_by_the_Hubble_Space_Telescope.png) if you would like to use it.EighteenFiftyNine (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work! I'm more inclined to use a label-less image however, as I want to represent the galaxy as it would be seen through a telescope, without lines or text. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

(18 March 2019) Comment: Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5
Hello. I see you added a disputed tag to the page Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5, however, it seems like you forgot to add a Disputed section on the talk page. I do not immediately see where you see something factually incorrect. The article (at least at first glance) looks to be appropriately cited and in general looks fine. Is it about this part where block 3 and block 4 are discussed without being clearly defined (and a new section wasn't added to the talk page because it already discuss the naming controversy) "SpaceX announced in 2017 that Falcon 9 Block 5 version has now succeeded the transitional Block 4. The largest changes between Block 3 and Block 5 are higher thrust on all of the engines and improvements on landing legs." Trialpears (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We're trying to figure out if a "Block 1" and "Block 2" of a Falcon 9 Full Thrust exist, and whether there's 5 or 7 versions of the Falcon 9 overall. The Falcon 9, Falcon 9 Full Thrust, Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5, and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches have conflicting information with each other because of this issue, with the majority of the articles and content conforming with the 5-version lineage, instead of the 7-verson lineage that the Falcon 9 Full Thrust Block 5 article implies, and until we have proof of what the alleged "Block 1" and "Block 2" of the Full Trust were, and thus some sort of empirical evidence of their existence, we can't say that their existence is verifiable, because any evidence of their existence that currently exists was published after-the-fact and/or is anecdotal. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

(16 April 2019) Comment: File:Microsoft Office 2019.png
Hello there. I was updating the Microsoft Office apps articles with the new icon design from Microsoft, and I realised that the icons inside the photo placed inside the infobox of Microsoft Office is not the newest version (File:Microsoft Office 2019.png). I was wondering if you could update the photo with the new icons (all uploaded to Commons), or if you don't mind, I can update it too. Cheers! –Wefk423 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If I have time later in the week, I'll update it. I will not be using the files on Commons, since I'll probably nominate them for deletion due to copyright violations, and will instead use the actual .ico images included with the latest Office update for Insiders. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help. But I would like to know why would you nominate the icons for deletion due to copyright violations? From what I know, these logos are in public domain as the icons consists only simple geometric shapes. –Wefk423 (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they're much more than that, as they also incorporate various patterns and colours, along with colour gradients and drop shadows. It's clearly not just shapes and a colour; the Office 2007 and 2010 program icons had previously been deleted from Commons in the past for similar reasons. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

(24 April 2019) Comment: PCGamesN
Philip I hope you can help me update an entry you made in May 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PCGamesN_logo.svg I am the Design Director of Network N and this is our new logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PCGamesN_wordmark_OrangeBlack_RGB.svg Please feel free to contact me with any queries you may have. Regards Ian Miller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatianbloke (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can edit Infobox website's "image" parameter in the PCGamesN article, so that the image would instead lead to "PCGamesN wordmark OrangeBlack RGB.svg". – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 13:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

(16 May 2019) Discussion: Artemis program
I personally think we should use it as a placeholder instead of the exploration logo for Artemis
 * It would be misleading, like using the Apollo 11 patch for the Apollo program in general. The "Explore" wordmark, especially the "Explore Moon to Mars" wordmark, is a commonly recognisable image related to NASA's crewed lunar exploration efforts since 2017. It trails all their social media videos and livestreams, and is featured prominently on their Moon to Mars portal. The wordmark, if anything, should be used as the placeholder in lieu of a program logo. In addition, File:Exploration Mission-1 patch.png is already used in the "Missions" section of the article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok understandable, and sorry for cluttering the page with pictures, was just mimicking constellation page's layout

(2 June 2019) Comment: WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations
I look forward to your comments on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sydney/Railway_stations This got nowhere back in 2015 but as the Transport Info website is now improving it is felt we are just duplicating information which can now in some stations be linked to without the big maintenance load. It is expected this will expand to other stations as time goes on.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey there, thanks for pinging me! I'll be sure to write down my thoughts on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney/Railway stations when I have the time later tonight! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 11:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

(10 June 2019) Discussion: Sydney Ferries articles
When you created such links back in late 2017 besides the normal links you also added an archived one in a smaller format. These archived ones appear not to have worked for some time. Most have over a period of time been updated by bots to a different version as was done today for Birchgrove ferry wharf but I noticed that the updated version also does not work and then noticed that they also do not work in most ferry sites - Circular Quay ferry wharf is one which still has the original link only. Should we change the links to such as https://web.archive.org/web/20171201042403/https://transportnsw.info/stop?q=10102007#/ for Birchgrove which has a similar date to that which you used (where available of course) or should we replace them more current ones as the 2017 ones are now out of date. I suspect you wanted to keep the original ones for historic purposes. I also believe that Transport for NSW is working on a further new format which they have already implemented for some train stations such as Chatswood railway station https://transportnsw.info/stop-details?q=10101117#/ which will require an update of all ferry wharves in due course as these have slightly different URL's, for I suppose the current links only but not the archived ones. Your thoughts please. Fleet Lists (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I had also done the same for a number of articles on Sydney Trains stations around the same time. Unfortunately, most of them were done in archive.today's services, which have been down for a while now. [1 ] I used these services for the majority of the links because back in 2017, Wayback Machine would not allow me to archive a large amount of pages in a single day. You're right in assuming it was done for archival purposes, though since not much as changed between now and then and most of the archived links are now gone, it'd probably be best to start over and archive the pages as they are in 2019, and go from there. The Wayback Machine is a lot more friendly to me and my browser than it was a few years ago, and I don't anticipate the archive to be going away anytime soon. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have updated all the known stations ones as well as a couple of ferry ones - will get stuck into the other ferry ones during the rest of the week.Fleet Lists (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I'll be sure to look out for any dead archive links on Sydney Trains and NSW TrainLink articles as well! I will advise against adding links to PDFs featured in any Stations, stops, and wharves directory pages. Since there's already an external link to the directory pages themselves, which have all the links to the PDFs, it wouldn't be necessary to stuff the "External Links" sections with PDFs that are already inherently linked to through the main directory page itself. If it helps to illustrate a part of the article, such as a PDF map of bus routes, an External media box in the article itself would be of important encyclopedic use. One example would be the {[tl|External media}} used in Tallawong railway station, which doubles as both an illustration of bus routes and a citation for such. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All known ferry wharves have now been updated.Fleet Lists (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(15 June 2019) Comment: Bella Vista railway station
I am having a problem with the above station where the external image aligns under the Infobox away from the Services section to which it relates. Any ideas how this can be resolved?Fleet Lists (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to float=left which may be the way to go with all of them. Fleet Lists (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to reply! I strongly disagree that this is the best way to go with it. We should be cutting out excessive details from Infobox station to allow the article some breathing space, and to allow space for External media on the right side of the article. As a reminder, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". There may be details you have to shave from the Infobox that, while too detailed for readers with barely even a casual interest in transport, may be important for people actively looking for those finer details. These details can be placed in the article prose instead; the architect and parking spaces for cars and bikes detailed in a “Design” section in Tallawong railway station is a good example of how to go about this. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(2 July 2019) Comment: Space Shuttle Discovery
Hey Philip ~ nice to meet you ~ I noticed your changes on the space shuttle pictures ~ in flight is a good picture but I don't agree that all the picture changes are appropriate, I think the discovery lifting off is a better picture than the one that's there now ~ I would like to take your changes to the talk pages of the articles ~ and get a consensus from all the editors who have been watching these pages ~ your thoughts? ~ thanks ~mitch~ (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Where should such a discussion take place, may I ask? If you point me to the right place I’ll be sure to start a discussion on the topic. However, I doubt that people would be opposed to the idea that using an image of the orbiters themselves as leads would be most appropriate for articles about, well, the orbiters themselves. There doesn’t need to be extra clutter, and not should there be. The entire launch system is mostly expendable and not part of the orbiters and thus shouldn’t be cluttering the image. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you just wake up ? hey there is some important news going on ~ Tyler Skaggs ~ no I think they are fine I just wanted to talk to you about, where should we put the pictures that were originally there ~ zzzz ~` sorry I bore myself with my own inspiration ~ thanks ~ by the way nice meeting you ~mitch~ (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally think most of the Space Shuttle articles have an incredible amount of images of the shuttle launch system lifting off as it is. I’m sure a few less wouldn’t hurt. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea I somewhat agree ~ but I'm going to call it quits for now I'll be back in the morning ~ have a good evening ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * eh~ what do you think? ~ STS-124 ~mitch~ (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(22 July 2019) Comment: List of highest-grossing openings for films
Dear PhilipTerryGraham, would you like to take a look at the page List of highest-grossing openings for films. At the moment, I think many users are processing incorrect information. I am not very well known in the English wikipedia but I saw your name in the history of the page, and with your Wikipedia-experience I think I can best ask you this. If I use this [link] I get other data for example at: The Lion King. Maybe you could help me out and control the page. Thank you in advance. RuedNL2 (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * . If there's any further problems with the article, we'll probably have to appeal to get some level of edit protection. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 21:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

(31 July 2019) Discussion: User:Rowan Forest
You fought the NASA statement through an image that the distance between the Ultima Thule lobes was X, when the NASA image clearly stated X. Then you made up a fictional ESA division named Science Program (in singular). Then you argue against the references of the date of creation of Artemis, and argue against the NASA references on the Artemis' first flight. There is a name for that: WP:Competence is required. If you don't want your edits to be reverted, don't use references out of context to make up a synthesis of what you would like the story to be like. So don't pollute my Talk page about my "behavior" when I have to clean up after your falsehoods. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagreement with you does not equal incompetence, Rowan. You should know better than this. I thought it was understood that I had made a mistake on the Ultima Thule article; you specifically replied by saying "I am happy you finally understand that the distance between the lobes is an ADDITIONAL measurement in addition of its length." Why are you apparently still upset about this a whole seven months after it was resolved? The ESA Science Programme does indeed exist, [1 ][2 ][3 ] and as far as I'm aware, we editors are still trying to work out the whole timeline of NASA's human spacelight between 2010 and 2017. Exploration Flight Test-1 has to belong in some program if not Artemis. You have to be willing to discuss sources instead of outright ignoring them and saying that they were "taken out of context"; you do realise that on many occasions you yourself have been "[making] up a synthesis of what you would like the story to be like" but without sources, yes? You did not provide a single source to back up your claims in any of your replies on Talk:European Space Agency Science Programme and Talk:Artemis program, for example. You even lied about a source one time, saying that it was a NASA source when it obviously wasn't. Ultimately, I came to your talk page about your behaviour, Rowan. You should stop denying that your bad behavior constitutes a violation of policies against personal attacks. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't give you the right to insult them. This isn't a point of discussion; it is literally Wikipedia policy not to attack editors on personal grounds. You should stop reusing to get the point and consider this my last warning before I have to seek help from an administrator. I'm sure they won't see my concerns about violation of policy as a "". Again, I'm disappointed that you've essentially used disagreement as an excuse for repeated personal attacks, and I hope from now on we can have civil discussions on content and sources, not editors. I have faith that you have the capacity and competence required to discuss content and sources without involving a editor's prior disputes with you to make an irrelevant point or making childish insults such as calling people "" and saying "" I've never once said that conversing with you was useless, nor have I ever made any personal attack or derailed a discussion on a certain topic just to talk about your past. As such, I believe it to be fair to expect the same kind of respect from you that I've afforded to you thus far. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 17:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

(8 August 2019) Comment: Template:Apollo program
You don't need to ping me on your replies to that talkpage; I have the template and its talk page on my watch list. Please be more discriminating about when it's necessary to use the ping feature. Also, I think it's unnecessary and rude to call out the name of the user you're responding to in your edit summary on an article talk page. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I always use the Reply to template to reply to people mostly because in my early days there were too many instances in which my messages were missed and resulted in disputes driven by impatience. Nobody can see your watchlist, so it's safe to assume that I don't know what's on your watchlist either. I'll refrain from using Reply to to respond to you on Template talk:Apollo program, per your request. Also, I apologise that my use of edit summaries offended you, but please understand that they are completely innocuous and aren't meant to offend in the slightest bit; I like to make it explicitly clear to my future self and to other editors in page histories and my contributions list what I'm doing with each edit. It makes reviewing or searching my contributions much, much easier. For example, if, for whatever reason, I need to search for a past discussion with a particular user, I can Alt+F4 search their name in my contributions, as I always mention who I'm replying to in edit summaries. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 17:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

(21 September 2019) Comment: SpaceX Starship
Hi Terry. I saw your recent attempt to document all the previous moves/move discussions on the SpaceX Starship Talk page. Good on you. I think you missed one. The original article was Starship (rocket) and it was BOLD moved to Starship (spacecraft) with no discussion. And then noone (including me) seemed to notice until it was too late, and would have been a complicated move back. Just FYI. Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I somehow missed that! Thanks for pointing it out – I've added it to Old moves on the article's talk page. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

(23 December 2019) Comment: File:Kurzgesagt.svg
Hello Philip, passing by to let you know I created an svg of Kurzgesagt's logo. The colors may be a bit off compared to your version, since Kurzgesagt itself provides various variants. I also found out this "mini" version. Thanks for the earlier PNG version :) Yug (talk)  10:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your version fails to retain any of the transparency features of the original PNG version, however. I'd probably advise to either figure out a way to restore the original transparency features, or remove the "atmosphere" around the planet entirely. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 22:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My SVG is a starting point yes. I went for opacity:1 due to some technical-time constraints, but other may prefer to keep the transparancy. In this ases the clouds and landmass will have to be cutted. Yug (talk)  14:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

(30 December 2019) Discussion: Xbox Series X
You made a rather bold assertion in an edit to Xbox and Xbox Series X implicating that Xbox Series X games will have forward compatibility with Xbox One. There have been absolutely no statements that indicate any form of forward compatibility of Xbox "Series X" games with existing Xbox One consoles. Only backwards compatibility. There is always a chance that titles may be exclusive to these newer models, and these games have been promoted specifically as being in development for Scarlett/"Series X". Therefore, your edits have been reverted. Please do not add or implicate a controversial change to an article without providing reliable secondary sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? Can you further clarify what exact change in wording you disagreed with? In my view, all I did was move the "Games" section of the Xbox Series X to Xbox and merge the content leftover into more consolidated paragraphs. I simplified the wording a bit to the best of my ability with the content moved to the Xbox article, but if there was anything that I got wrong, then I apologise. However, this does not excuse the revert of every change I made without a decent explanation outside of disagreeing with only some of the changes made. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 21:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I sifted through the edit summary of the Xbox article, and it seems you have a bone to pick with, as that you disagreed with, not me. I'd advise against being trigger-happy about your accusations next time. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 21:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No text added at any point suggested 4th gen Xbox games would play on Xbox One; but there is plenty of support that xbox one games will be playble on the 4th gen xbox. While it is true there may possibly be "Series X" exclusive games, at this point we have no idea what other models will be in this line, and given what we know from the Xbox One/X/S lines there were no such titles, only titles enhanced for X. The approach that I wrote and Philip worked from is 100% consistent with sources with as little specificity as we know now. --M asem (t) 22:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

(6 January 2020) Comment: Sydney
Hi there, I just wanted to say I liked the montage you created for the Sydney page, and I appreciate the effort you put in to it. As per my discussion on the Sydney talk page, I'd encourage you to post it again and open the image selection up for discussion. Gracchus250 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll opt to put it up for discussion at Talk:Sydney instead, before I add any montage to the article again. Thanks for the heads-up! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 20:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

(9 January 2020) Discussion: V Sagittae
Thank you for your edit to add an image to V Sagittae! I was looking to do the same thing. But the target circle is off-center. Basing it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulpecula#/media/File:Vulpecula_IAU.svg would include the Summer Triangle and put the spot near the center. Make sense? I dare say you could do that more quickly than I, but I could also figure out the new x,y coords if necessary. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See e.g. my inspiration at https://twitter.com/nealmcb/status/1215348137893625857 ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In this situation, File:Vulpecula constellation map.svg would actually be used instead, but it doesn't include the Summer Triangle. File:Sagitta constellation map.svg also covers a smaller field of view than the Vulpecula map, and thus the location of V Sagittae would be significantly more accurate for the reader. I also don't really understand the significance of the Summer Triangle in this context, since the star system is not really positioned in any meaningful location relative to the triangle other than being simply nearby it. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 20:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the goal of the image should be to provide context that helps the reader. The notability here is of a currently insignificant star system that will modify and outshine the summer triangle when it explodes, as nicely illustrated in the tweet I referenced, so I'm going for a similar effect here. Most readers will be much better able to generally picture where it is in the sky using the well-known summer triangle than via the current diagram. The slightly more accurate positioning via the current diagram is still useless for actually finding the star in a telescope, for which we need a different diagram or reference. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical of your assertion that people wouldn't be able to find the star in relation to Sagitta, and need the much larger Summer Triangle to locate it. Sagitta is a constellation with a few bright third- and fourth-magnitude stars, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 21:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Having taught and gone out on many nights with people stargazing, I'm quite sure most people would have quite a bit of trouble finding Sagitta. Seeing 4th magnitude stars from a city is hard. There's at least a fighting chance with the summer triangle. And what I said was that they couldn't actually find V Sge in a telescope given the diagram. The star isn't nearly bright enough to be marked on the underlying Sagitta_constellation_map.svg, which goes down only to 6th magnitude. It averages 11th magnitude, and varies from 13th to 8.6th magnitude. Without lots more nearby finder stars, especially during the majority of the time when it is below 10 magnitude, people won't have a chance. So we want a big context image, and someday a much more detailed set of finder charts and aids (like current magnitude estimates). ★NealMcB★ (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So now you're saying people who have a hard time trying to find the third- and fourth-magnitude stars of Sagitta would be able to discern V Sagittae, an eighth-to-thirteenth-magnitude star? The Summer Triangle – which, again, is not visible in the alternative File:Vulpecula constellation map.svg – is definitely not gonna help them there either. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. I'm talking about how to frame the article. I think we should frame it more or less like the authors do in their recent presentations for the press, as provided at and as illustrated in that tweet. They start of with a very explicit slide of the summer triangle in the background. I'm saying that the reason most people will come to this page is to get a sense for what will happen long in the future, around 2083. And what they or their descendants will see as it becomes visible, and later, quite bright, at that time will be like the tweet animation I linked to. They'll be much more likely to find it in the sky by finding the summer triangle. Other maps are necessary for a long time, but the notability of this article is all about the future views, and people will want to have a handy context for that future view, and point out to their kids - "It will be right about there" after finding the summer triangle. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be writing for people in 2083, though. We should be writing for people today; and today V Sagittae is a eighth-to-thirteenth-magnitude star that will be a lot easier to find relative to a brighter constellation nearby than it will be relative to an asterism that's so big it spans five constellations... –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

(11 January 2020) Discussion: Talk:Sydney
To clarify, although I stated this in my edit summary, just because you started the discussion at Talk:Sydney doesn't mean you WP:OWN it. My post was made in direct response to the images proposed in the "Image suggestions" section and does not therefore count as general discussion. Moving that part of the discussion around as you have done goes well beyond what is permitted by WP:REFACTOR and if you persist in moving the text I am happy to discuss this at WP:ANI! -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel the best way to move forward is to start an entirely new "Image suggestions" section in the discussion, so that we can both be happy that a) your replies are preserved the way you want them to and b) discussion on the selection of images can be free of "photomontage bad" talk, which can continue outside of the section instead. Sound good? –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed with the lack of reply, but I'll go about carrying out this compromise tomorrow afternoon anyways; a new start to the section would be the best way forward for the discussion. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have missed your reply. I don't really see the need to create another section. That's just going to confuse things even more. Just let the discussion progress naturally. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The discussion in "Image selection" is barely about image selection anymore, so unless you have a suggestion as to what to do next, I see no other option than a reset. It's better than doing nothing and letting an otherwise productive discussion devolve further and further off-topic... –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 10:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is still discussion about image selection in the section. Cement4802 added more today. You can't create a new section every time the discussion deviates from what you would like to see there. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Barely any discussion, you mean. Half the section is just editors arguing over the existence of the photomontage itself in obnoxiously large paragraphs of text again, which should’ve been kept in general discussion. Cement’s (seemingly) genuine attempt to return the discussion to the main topic of the section has once again been met with needless negativity. However, you intensely disliked moving parts of the discussion into general discussion, yet you also aren’t offering any alternative solution other than “let the discussion progress naturally”, which obviously hasn’t worked these past few days. A new section setting the rules of discussion with a hatnote detailing the topic to be discussed, with a proper, reasonable warning this time that off-topic discussion will be moved per guidelines on refactoring talk pages, would be better than doing absolutely nothing in helping keep the discussion on-topic. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 19:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The simple nature of discussions is that people often make a single post after being pinged and then move on while others just become disinterested after a while. Letting the discussion progress naturally is what normally happens on Wikipedia. You may not like it but this is the way that it is. A new section is not going to change anything. If images are suggested the correct place to discuss those images is after the suggestion, not in another section. Cement4802's suggestions completely disregard the discussion elsewhere, which is why there is negativity. It's just something that has to be accepted. Again, you may not like it but this is the way that it is. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet the continued bickering this morning only proves the need to create a new, more concise and patrolled discussion. It's not about what I want, it's about keeping the discussion on topic. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 09:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you can't always keep discussions on topic. They do tend to go off-track and there is very little to be achived. Wikipedia generally does not moderate discussions. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

(7 May 2020) Discussion: Lunar Gateway
What does POV mean? CRS-20 (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're asking why POV section was added to the "Criticism" section of the article, you're gonna have to refer to Jadebeen and their entry on Talk:Lunar Gateway, as in the first place, not me. The message box itself tells readers and editors that "relevant discussion may be found on the talk page", so please be sure to check talk pages before poking other editors about it next time. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * On Spaceflight Now from May 6, 2020, he has a very nice photo of NASA representing the Gateway, can you import it for me, I can't do it and thank you in advance. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to know what the letters POV mean. CRS-20 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * to the article's Infobox space station per your suggestion! –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 02:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The ESPRIT module has been funded, but it will not be launched until 2025. CRS-20 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct, though I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That the ESPRIT module should be in the "Proposed" section. CRS-20 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not make modifications to my signature like you did . I fail to see why it should be kept in "Proposed" when it's a fully-funded module that is currently under development; it is no longer a proposal but an active project. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this error, I don't know how it could have happened. So we must add the iHAB module which was also funded in December 2019. CRS-20 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern with that is I couldn't find sources to verify that JAXA have also funded their contributions to iHAB; that particular module is a joint venture, after all. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I found a source in the article "H-II transfer vehicle": http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903190005.html CRS-20 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a news article from March 2019 detailing the announcement of the iHAB proposal. It does not verify that Japan's contributions to iHAB have been funded by the Japanese government and/or JAXA, which is something I do not believe has happened yet. There needs to be a source that explicitly states that Japan's iHAB contributions have actually been approved and will be going forward. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

(12 May 2020) Discussion: Category:Space Shuttle missions
Hi again. I've noticed you've been goin through the early shuttle images articles and updating the lead images to highlight the mission. I do appreicte that, but could you also remember to keep the launch pictures in the article: just move them lower down to another section such as highlights, rather than replacing the lead image and discarding the launch photo from the article. Thanks. User:Raphael.concorde 10:27 PM UTC (May 12, 2020)
 * Apologies for that. I guess I found that a vast majority of the Shuttle mission articles were a complete mess of images, so I felt that it was not my business to shove yet another image into articles' prose sections. However, I do concede understand in certain cases, such as the unique view of Columbia with Discovery launching at the start of STS-35, it would be valuable to keep such images in the article, but then again File:S90-48650.jpg already exists in the article and is a much better image. I am confused by your reasoning for the in STS-28, though. You argued in favour the current lead image in the STS-134 mission because, despite its irrelevance to the mission, it was a unique historic image that should be used to represent the mission. File:SILTS Image.jpg not only satisfies my preference for mission-relative photography – it's a photograph taken by a notable scientific instrument (SILTS) carried by Columbia during the mission – but your preference for unique historic images too; it's an exceptionally rare photograph of a Space Shuttle orbiter during reentry from the exterior of the Shuttle itself. Thus, I was caught off guard by your comment that "Original image better, remember the unwitten rule of good quality lead images." I'm unsure of what you'd like lead images to be now. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 23:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Yeah I know the STS-28 image showing the SILTS is a good science camera image, but typically shuttle lead image highlights are taken in natural wavelength (visible light photographs), and thought it seemed out of place. In the message where I restored the previous version, I also made a note where I'm currently sifting through NASA's various image archives for a suitable replacement to suit the mission highlights. When I find one I'll upload it to wikimedia commons and hopefully you'll like it. I guess you and I love the shuttle program (which is great to know), but I'm also a photographer of one that cares to display HQ images. Hope this helps. Take care. User:Raphael.concorde 7:24 AM UTC (May 13, 2020)
 * I will note that since STS-28 was a Department of Defense mission, you'll find it exceptionally difficult to find high-quality in-flight photography, since most of the mission is classified. At best you'll find these sorts of missions documented overwhelmingly exclusively by Earth photography conducted by the crew; and even the Johnson Space Center's Flickr archive for STS-28 photography illustrates this. Good luck, I suppose! –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(29 May 2020) Comment: Space Launch System
Hi, I would like to solicit your input on a debate around the launch cost of the SLS rocket. Jadebenn made an edit here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314 And since no one challenged his edit at the time he now considers it a consensus and refuses to revert back to old (and most importantely real) figures. He refuses to debate my argument therefore I solicit your input into this. Thanks - Moamem (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you've come onto my talk page soliciting an "input on a debate" by complaining about another editor instead of making a case for your argument... but I'll take a look at it nonetheless, I suppose. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly more confused by the fact he didn't even link the discussion on the talk page. Essentially, the argument boils down to him wanting to use a figure for the total yearly programmatic cost plus a launch as the "cost per launch" figure, when the article already has a separate "cost per year" category to address it. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 05:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(26 June 2020) Comment: Commercial Crew Program
You manually reverted my grammar-related edits at the aforementioned article. Please do not revert my edits so as to implement grammatically incorrect text. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies. There has been a handful of editors adding uncited information into the article as of late, and unfortunately your edit was caught up in a blanket revert of edits from another user who added a launch date for Crew-1 with no citation. I'm terribly sorry for that; I'll definitely be a lot more careful with my weeding next time! –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 06:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Understandable. I appreciate your mature response: not a whole lot of Wikipedians are as helpful and grown. The system has its quirks and I imagine that you've experienced plenty, according to your edit count. I've been doing lots of grammatical corrections lately and that revert kind of irked me. Although, I did find one of my corrections was erroneous, so I suppose it wasn't a complete wrench in the gears. Anyways, thank you and have a good one. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(16 July 2020) Comment: Space and Missile Systems Center
Garuda28 is threatening me, can you handle it. Cordially. CRS-20 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk page stalker Comment, CRS-20's concerns appear to be related to warning posted on User talk:CRS-20. OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unsure as to what you mean by "threatening" you. From what I can see from the edit history of the Space and Missile Systems Center article, and your talk page, you had simply been rightfully warned against engaging in edit warring. of the topic's name from "Space and Missile Systems Center" to "Space & Missile Systems Center", and thus when  reverted your changes, it was then your responsibility to discuss your proposed additions on the article's talk page per the BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Unfortunately, you decided not to do this; you ignored  after  to "go to the talk page to justify these changes" and insisted upon your version of the title by making . I simply cannot help you here. I can only give you my opinion that you're in the wrong, and that you need to study the BRD cycle if you don't want other editors to be upset at your behaviour. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)