For the amount of articles the editors at WP:AFC do accept, how many do they decline? (Just curious.) Thanks! Helloheart (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are sufficiently curious to do some virtual legwork (fingerwork?), you can add up all the numbers of pages in the subcategories of Category:AfC submissions by date. Let the grand total be S. There are are 2,870 pending submissions, so the number N of those for which a decision has been taken should be given by N = S − 2870. I have already done the work for Category:Declined AfC submissions, not counting the 110 pages in Category:AfC submissions cleaned of copyright violations. The number D of declined submissions, as of now, is given by D = 38443. The number A of accepted submissions should then be given by A = N − D, and the fraction of declined submissions on the total number of decided submissions equals D / N.  --Lambiam 07:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started tracking my own verdicts out of curiosity a while back. I've accepted 68 and declined or rejected 779 from then until now, so roughly 10 out of 11 don't see the light of day. (Mind you, I am a deletionist, so YMMV.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that the more persistent resubmit their work multiple times. I've dealt with a few of those, which affects the second total. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For interest, that's in the same ballpark as what used to be considered the success ratio of unsolicited book manuscripts submitted to publishers, back before the internet. It was reckoned that from the "over-the-transom" submissions (aka "the slushpile"), 900 out of 1000 would be rejected on sight or nearly so, and of the 100 given further consideration, perhaps 10 would eventually see print. Does this tell us anything useful? Probably not. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.172.49 (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgeon's law --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, since Ted Sturgeon (I knew Ted and Jayne slightly) made the relevant observation in a discussion of work that had been published. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.195.172.49 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi expert,

how is this weapon called? It might be either an American or an Ukrainian model.-- Syricid (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy file description (here) is in Ukrainian and might answer your question.* The photo was taken during Combined Resolve X, a recurring U.S. Army Europe and Africa exercise series held at 7th Army Training Command and Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Bavaria.[1] The weapon appears to be a type of Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). 136.56.52.157 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC) ... My guess: M249 [reply]

*Google translation did not reveal an answer --136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here an Ukrainian participant mentions an Утес (Utes), which he calls "the best machine gun for a real war before Kord". I think this "Utes" or "Utyos" is the NSV machine gun, Утёс (Utyos) in Russian, even though its Ukrainian name is Бескид (Beskid). I did not try to compare the images of the NSV with the weapon in the photograph. More photos with soldiers participating in the exercise holding guns, published by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, can be found here.  --Lambiam 16:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link for the US Army SAW is M249 light machine gun. It seems much more likely than the NSV which is a (very) heavy machine gun equivalent to the 0.5-inch Browning M2 and would be impossible to fire without using a tripod. Alansplodge (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The short length of barrel between the gas system and the muzzle indicates possibly an M249 Para or a modified version thereof. The appearance of the gas system (below the barrel) from the front is very similar to that of the M249 Para as well. The carrying handle arm isn't the standard one on the M249, it is usually thinner. It isn't an NSV, which isn't fired from the shoulder unless on a tripod and is 12.7 mm in any case, and those rounds aren't 12.7 mm, they are most likely 5.56 mm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Top Gun: Maverick and in real life: How do you call the small, wave-shaped shelters for the aircraft on the enemy airstrip, which are all destroyed by the Tomahawks - as known, with one exception and an F-14 inside? --KnightMove (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the film, but most likely they were Hardened aircraft shelters from your description. According to the article a standard design will withstand a 226 kg (500 lb) bomb while the Tomahawk (missile) article says they carry a 450 kg (1000 lb) warhead, so that should do it on direct hits (I'm assuming they weren't nuclear warheads in the film). --jjron (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could have had the idea that the aircraft shelter I am looking for is called an aircraft shelter... thanks. --KnightMove (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, an aircraft shelter without a lid is called a revetment. Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]