This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Good evening! Happy New Year! Health, luck and love! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.90.114 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please check and fix the broken <ref> in the Beidou navigation system, details on the talk page: Talk:Beidou navigation system#REF broken. (I hope this is the right place for this request, as the article is marked as part of this WikiProject.) --CiaPan (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally folks, there's a merge discussion ongoing over on this page too, which has stalled somewhat; could do with some more input from anyone interested. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The merge has been completed. SalopianJames (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, we have a declined WP:AFC draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SAFARI imaging spectrometer. It has great potential for getting into mainspace. maybe somebody want to work on it... mabdul 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Identification help requested. Photo (or, more likely, computer artwork) credited to NOAA, so presumably a U.S. Earth observation satellite. Can anyone identify it more precisely? - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• It's definitely a TIROS-N. Hard to tell which subtype from that angle, but probably one of the later NOAAs or a DMSP-5D3. Solar panel is wrong for a NOAA, but the instrument configuration doesn't quite match DMSP. Definitely not a Landsat. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 00:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've posted an enquiry on the image's Flickr page, so hopefully they'll tell us! :-) SalopianJames (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I figured someone here would know. - Jmabel | Talk 19:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Looking at it again, I'm fairly certain it is either NOAA-18 or NOAA-19 (or both, since they are essentially identical). The solar panels are probably just at an odd angle. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 22:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd concur with WDGraham. For reference, though, take at look at this NASA article (specifically this image and this image) and this image of NOAA-19. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing effort by some admins on commons to delete all MESSENGER and New Horizons images. (See here and here). I think this is not justified because they use very specious interpretation of their image use policies. I think the astronomical community needs to know and participate in all those discussions. Ruslik_Zero 09:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks, quick question regarding the launching wrappers we have for upcoming flights. Each of them has a set of text below it regarding 'this template', which details an out-of date link, and, try as I might, I can't see where this is being called from; it doesn;t appear to be in the template code not the code for the parent Launching template - any clues as to where I might find it, please? Apologies if I'm being really thick here... :-S SalopianJames (talk) 10:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Launching/Details ? (sdsds - talk) 08:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the one! :-) SalopianJames (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that the Space stations working group page is getting older looking, Tiangong 2, 3, and the CSS aren't mentioned. Just thought I'd mention as I'm not part of that working group. Penyulap _talk 09:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be dead. SalopianJames (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it were my page, I'd find a little cartoon tombstone to let people know :) Penyulap _talk 10:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In my view, such a Space stations working group will pick up again and become vital when there eventually arises real economic options for where space station manufacturing and research can be carried out. Unlikely in the near term, where every extant space station is some kind of proxy of national pride and virility, and operated by government bureaus. With competition, we may see such options exist in future years. We can only hope. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It will make a comeback, there is a lot to be done, and lots of new and exciting things going on. Actually I better write up a request under this. Penyulap _talk 10:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of pictures of the ISS that we have all seen, but what are all those little bits and pieces all over it ? They could be Mynocks as far as wikipedia will tell you. There is a bit of a project going on to map the ISS in linked pictures, a little like google streetview, and help labelling all the little bits and pieces is greatly needed. If you have PDF's or bookmarks on your computer, or know where to find labelled diagrams that we can use to work out which bit is which for sure, please post them here, or on the ISS talkpage, I'll gather them into a collection, to help everyone who is involved in this. The kind of thing is pictures like this one of the Soyuz, or any picture anywhere that helps us work out what is a Kurs antenna and what is a tracking device placed there by the Empire. Labels for all the modules and also all the ships that have visited or will visit the station as well. Penyulap _talk 12:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

When I joined I chose an image of the first spacecraft, which to me represented original pioneering spirit, going where nobody else had gone, rather than a symbol of one-upmanship as outlined in the American presidents 'man to the moon' speech which not many people have heard in full these days. Anyhow none of the 'competition' or 'space race' nonsense interests me, it does irritate me that every flipping country, and I mean every country re-invents the wheel. Russia is trying to replace the Soyuz for example, because it says it is not it's own. Whatever.

So then when I saw a comment on the Mars500 talkpage, where someone who both knows what a wikipedia project is, and is asking why is it part of project USA, I'm thinking well, why is it part of the project USA, or why is he asking is it part of project USA? So I'm looking and see that the current image is in fact such an American iconic image this guy can't tell the diff. oh, speaking of diffs, here's the diff [1].

The first ever spacecraft is good enough for me as I'm not fussy, but maybe there is some other simple image that can be considered as an alternate, something less this side or that side of the cold war nonsense, Maybe a rocket or something, from a project so obscure people can just think as they please as to where it comes from, because it's so generic. Penyulap _talk 02:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it is much of an issue. If others consider it an issue, however, then I think using Sputnik would be little different from Apollo, since it was the launch of Sputnik which triggered the space race. If a change has to be made, I think this would probably be the best image to use, since it is fairly neutral in terms of national interests. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 08:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I totally fail to see a problem here, but if we really must change the image, may I suggest the one of the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope that we have on our Project page banner be used? SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hubble is a good pic, but hard to identify as a spacecraft at the resolution on this page, a typical cylindrical body with solar arrays either side is quicker to identify, but excludes manned flight. A simple rocket would be generic enough, but care is needed it's not looking like a weapon. The ISS pic is better for neutrality, true, it does date easily though, and excludes China. I'd figure it's a good alternative until something better comes along. Maybe two or more banners can be used, tailoring the banner to the article, until a unifying image is identified. Penyulap _talk 09:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus here is for no change, so far at least, so please don't make any unilateral changes, as I will revert them. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree on no change. Any "national bias" here is only found because the complainiants are looking for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change it, if that was the case, it'd already be done by now. I'm just discussing the issue. I don't much care how many people think Project spaceflight is "project USA" why should I ? If you don't want me to project feedback for suggestions or discuss things just say so and I won't bother. I can understand perfectly why you two in James words " totally fail to see a problem here " and that's normal. It's understandable. That is why I am trying to gently bring the matter to your attention as usual. I did not go looking for anything, it came to the talkpage of an article I'm working on. Some people can see these things, and some people totally fail to see. Penyulap _talk 13:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Further, as the years progress, and if wiki continues at all, (I expect it will be marginalized) then who on earth will be editing spaceflight articles ? or even more specifically, space station articles ? What space stations shall there be (in 20) years from now, and who'd edit them ? (I'm probably directing too far off the present-focus thing people have) Penyulap _talk 13:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just wrote an article for the Chinese space station which should help illustrate this point, when you consider the boost that the Chinese program got from the American threat of a Nuclear strike in the Korean war, and the exclusion of the Chinese from the ISS, maybe it's easier for you to also see what that editor on the Mars500 page saw. Makes no difference of course whether these points are in that article or on wikipedia at all, it's just going to be a reason why many potential editors don't edit. ...And in the long run I think it doesn't matter at all because wikipedia will fail in it's mission to be 'global' or neutral, due to it's structural shortcomings.

Anyhow, I notice we have a little pic on the WPSF main page. That kind of image is quite inoffensive, I think it's worth considering something along those lines. Actually, the chinese space station article also helps illistrate my point about using the ISS, which, really, IS a good idea, and a lot better than the current situation. Still, there are infinite possibilities out there, better quality images and so forth. Penyulap _talk 19:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In all fairness, that's not a bad idea... SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The ISS would be a suitable image, I agree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I put in a bit more thought, and pretty much wanted to think of a hi res photo rather than the cartoon, as people like hires, although cartoons are nice. Anyhow thinking things like a night time launch would be something harder to pick, but inspiring none the less, but still, if it shows launch towers people are going to know.

The I thought well, a HTV launch is good, because who doesn't love Japan, I mean they keep out of everyone's way don't they ? everyone likes them, so a htv would be perfect. Anyhow, a little later I realize the rape of nanking pretty much makes it impossible,. I was thinking a soyuz is pretty darn good, with the astronauts traveling on them, everyone holds their piece. The americans can't criticize it can they ? So that works well, the Chinese love the Russians. Russians love Russians, Americans can't avoid loving the Russians if they love getting to the ISS. but then I remember how many astronauts lost sleep at night because of the overwhelming fear of being sent to the deathtrap gulag otherwise known as MIR. I never knew it was so bad until the Americans told me so. Which reminded me there is nobody better than americans when it comes to criticizing, so that doesn't work. Then eventually I got to thinking that the ISS isn't such a bad idea, as the Russians and Chinese are such good friends, so the Chinese will view it as a friendly project. Now certainly they are excluded, however that may well change, as the Russians do run the show whenever they want to press a point, like with tourism, ESA and NASA were against it, Russia went ahead anyway. I can see that they may very well force the hand of America once the chinese have got a bit more experience with their dockings. If it happens of course, you can absolutely guarantee that the american press will claim it was all an american idea from the start that china should come to the ISS to 'bridge the gap' and it'll make you sick, well, it'll make me sick anyhow. In the end, I figure maybe the ISS is worth considering, as it should be cool all around, at least in the long term, china have their friends the Russians there, so they will only feel left out sometimes, and if the Russians press the point, as I expect, then all will be well. I think it would be quite easy to make a stylized version of this image, with a larger ISS and smaller moon and sun, going towards the cartoon sort of route. It would be pretty cool, and not likely to offend as much as shit like this because you can draw the ISS silhouette as large as you want, as you're simply closer (higher altitude) to the ISS.

Also, I think it would be a good idea to have a selection of user boxes available for new editors to choose from, I will be happy to add my own as an alternative, and will do so when I have a few minutes to spare, but it would be good to have a bit more variety than just the two, but who has the time. Penyulap _talk 17:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the sun rocket icon, rather than the ISS. SalopianJames (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind which one myself, you and Bushranger will have to Thumb war, best of three, I will keep an eye out for anything new that I think you guys would like. Penyulap _talk 08:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, I'm perfectly happy to keep the current one. I only suggested the ISS as an alternative if there was a strong consensus to change. To be honest, I couldn't care less. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 08:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think that the sun one is very cute, but I'd be happy with either one. I just messed with a paint program and drew a little man and a spaceship and the sun, like an EVA, it was cool, but not good enough. But it was very cute. I like cute. Penyulap _talk 08:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I did a search covering just images we have on wikipedia, not all of them of course, but I came up empty. this and this don't seem quite as good as the sunpic. The other thing is to avoid looking like project scifi, but that kind of confusion is no real problem. There would be clipart out there somewhere, like I use on my tp, but the sun image in some ways looks like a good idea as it prevents any kind of offense. (I can't stand sounding politically correct, I feel so dirty.) anyhow the other idea is maybe drawing up a little spacewalker guy with a rocketship and umbilical looping out to him, cartoon style it could be anyone. Still, no opinion can be formed till it's found or made, and something may turn up on the internet. Still, I would think a change is in order at the moment, if everyone is cool with that idea. Also, if there are no objections, I wouldn't mind adding my own userbox as an alternate userbox, and maybe later I can make a few that might be attractive to new users, or not, who knows. (the text of my userbox would be standardized first of course). Penyulap _talk 10:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) I really don't have any strong opinion here, as I don't spend enough time looking at images in Wikiproject banners for them to be misconstrued or otherwise be interpreted w/ any sort of negative connotation, but I suppose I can see where there might be an issue. At any rate, on the subject of an image for the banner, I do like the sun/rocket image a bit better, albeit not for political reasons; in my mind, it's just a better representation of the subject of the project. In all honesty, though, I really don't have that strong of an opinion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 
  4
• 
  5
• 
  6
• 
  7
• 
  8
• 
  9
• 
  10
• 
  11
• 
  12
• 
  13
• 
  14
• 
  15
• 
  16
• 
  17
• 
  18
• 
  19
• 
  20
• 
  star wars 21
• 
  ISS (2000) 22
• 
  (2006) 23
• 
  (2010) 24
• 
  25

Inserted ongoing tally

(inserted text) I give permission for anyone to edit my text here to reflect their changing opinions, or just say what you like and someone will put it in.

I cooked up a few similar images, don't worry about spaceman spiff, he'd be a userpage thing for people, but he was cute and wanted to come along to the discussion so I included him (sigh). Rocketships can be moved about and flipped, and the images flipped very fast and easy, as well as size and cropping so don't hesitate to make suggestions, generally colors are very easy, for example 10 is easy to have any color. Type 7 rockets I am not sure how easy it would be to change the color as there is a set of matching colors for the ships glint. Penyulap _talk 02:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am guessing it's out of 17 and 18 ? Penyulap _talk 09:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an alternate userbox Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/UserboxVostok here, if there are no objections I'd like to add it as an alternate userbox. Penyulap _talk 09:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm swayed toward 17 or 18. I don't particularly have any strong inclination, though. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping the current one, followed by a photo of the ISS. Failing that 18, since it is an SVG, and already an established project image. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 23:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I strongly oppose any of the "cutsey cartoon" images. A photograph is what is needed here, not something that, with all respect to the creator, looks like something sketched in 8th grade. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it looks like the ISS is pulling ahead, but Bushranger, it raises issues of what era shall the picture be from, I think a picture showing the NASA shuttle will be quite popular and with good reason too, on the other hand, who will photoshop the shuttle into a picture of the ISS post-Nauka and post science modules, and who shall complain that it's not accurate as Nauka and the NASA shuttle were never there at the same time, or which one to leave out ? Then, if people were happy for an empty ISS pic, would anyone ask the Soyuz lifeboats to be removed, as they are always there in the pictures, or, if it's too early in the ISS life, the ISS just doesn't look like the ISS to many people. Are we talking about the latest picture of the ISS at all times, or are we going the no busywork route ?

Anyhow I can't see the ISS as a perfectly logical solution. Penyulap _talk 02:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In terms of ISS images, File:ISS and Endeavour seen from the Soyuz TMA-20 spacecraft 14.jpg would be my preference because includes not only a Shuttle, but also an ATV, a Soyuz and a Progress (also Kibo is clearly visible, and although Canadarm2 is not, the Shuttle's arm is, so that accounts for Canadian contributions as well). Of the images you have proposed, 21 isn't recognisable as being a spaceflight-related image, 22 and 23 only show US/Russian components. I also think it would be better to have an image with less of a background, which would let it fit into the template better. Keeping the image up-to-date is not neccessary and indeed counterproductive, all we need to do is have something recognisable as a spacecraft with which everyone is happy. I still don't really see the point of changing the image now. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 09:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Support image 18. SalopianJames (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Support image 18 and support 17.Penyulap _talk 10:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

W. D. Graham, you have the right idea of wanting to include everyone, and that is the whole idea, to include every country that we can, China has a space program too, but how do we include them in the picture ? then again, how would we help everyone across the globe feel welcome, even those who haven't made it to space yet ? maybe I worry too much, but then again, the Mars-500 being part of wikiproject USA made me open my eyes. Then writing the Chinese space station article really opened my eyes. this part here made me think that some people may not be entirely happy with 19, and with good reason too. Penyulap _talk 10:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think number 7, 17 or 25 would be best for what its going to be used for.--NavyBlue84 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I Oppose image 25 - we need a simple image for the template, not a complex one like that as its too small to really resolve what's going on in it. SalopianJames (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

James, what about #22? I think the ISS ones are good for showing what can happen when many nations come together. Number 22 shows parts from at least 2 nations, and doesn't have a lot going on in it.--NavyBlue84 14:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the image used in the project banner template should be a simple, easy to remember icon that represents the project, like the planet used on the old Template:WikiProject Space, or the map used on Template:WPMILHIST, or the rocket used on Template:WikiProject Rocketry. It's not supposed to represent Spaceflight, just this WikiProject and, considering that we already image 18 to represent the spaceflight portal, I'd say it's the perfect choice. SalopianJames (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Spaceflight portal

I am away from my desk, but in a week or so I will want to make another simple image, from a few of your ideas, I want it to look a bit like this with a larger silouette of the station, large enough to see that, yes, it is the ISS, even when the image is an icon, but low resolution, enough so it doesn't attract conversation over what it does or doesn't show. It's easy for me to do a silouette from ISS clipart and then impose it on an eclipse image, we would have hundreds on the project already I expect. It would not be offensive to purists as the orbits can line up that way, and a larger station just means a higher vantagepoint, not like adding a non-existant planet or anything insane like that. It's just an idea of course, and I have no idea what people will think till after it's made. Unless of course people want an immediate change before I do it, and I'm cool with that, as you please. Penyulap _talk 06:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Of those up on the list with one or more supporters, I like image 17 the best. Seems acceptably neutral and abstract, that would emphasize the the "flight" as most non-space folks view it: getting to the "destination", not being in the thing (space station) that IS the destination. (Yes, I know, it's all orbital mechanics, both are orbital ellipses, etc. -- I'm just speaking of our broad worldwide audience for Wikipedia articles, lay people and techies.) Further, 17 has several others who found it acceptable. N2e (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I quite liked that one too, it could be any country at all, there is no particular destination, except 'away from the sun out into the universe' and the little window on the side suggests adventurer(s) inside. And it's using the nebula pic too. Penyulap _talk 07:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've messed with the template to make it 18 for now, I'm not in any way suggesting that discussion is closed unless everyone else feels that way, Personally I think just leaving the discussion ongoing and open is good. More ideas and chat = Brilliant ! Penyulap _talk 04:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The image is a little taller but I checked 20 pages and they all seem ok. Penyulap _talk 04:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I found no. 17 to be a beautiful picture to use, although I'm not opposed to using any of them listed above. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been thinking to improve 17 further to accommodate the Bushrangers valid viewpoint, that it is cartoonish. I was thinking to build a new image similar to 17 using some photographic textures for the rocket body if I can find something(s) abstract enough from actually vehicles (I was thinking of the spun aluminum body of a ballpoint pen at one stage, but I have neither the pen nor a camera for closeup), and an improved non-atmospheric plume for the rocket's exhaust gas. something more like a aerosol can's spray, with the rocket pointing in the same direction as it is now. Although that's two images on the to-do list, plus a heap of out-front work to do. Penyulap _talk 14:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the spaceflight template again to keep up with the changing ideas here, and I also did a few close to it, like the sandbox and some index of projects thing. I will not change the spaceflight invite banner however, as it's well outside of the objective here and is a personal editor to editor thing. I would like to, when I get time, add alternatives for people to choose from. So instead of just one template like this there'd be a ((WPSpaceflight-Invite-shuttle)) and ((WPSpaceflight-Invite-soyuz)) ((WPSpaceflight-Invite-armstrong)) and so forth. Oh yeah ! and a ((WPSpaceflight-Invite-spaceman-spiff)) as pictured above in a join-us-or-die invitation template :) yeah, way cool. here is an invite I made a while ago, couldn't decide which image was best, so I used all of them. Anyhow, I'm waffling aren't I ? Sorry. Penyulap _talk 11:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like 17, I think it looks more like a rocket than a spacecraft, especially with the exhaust plume (which would not look like that in space). It also looks too sci-fi. This is the Spaceflight wikiproject, not rocketry or science fiction, so I think 17, and the others like it, are confusing (18 is okay because it does leave some ambiguity, but I would still prefer to use a real spacecraft). --W. D. Graham 12:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed your new image... wouldn't it be better to use Sputnik, the first orbital spaceflight artifact? 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think sputnik may upset many editors, if you have a read through the section and see what the ideas are, it might be exchanging one problem for another. The original reason I brought up the issue was someone confused it with wikiproject USA here, and it seemed fair enough when you think of the places that it would eventually go, like here. So I'd think people would wonder why the moon landing page has sputnik on it. In the meantime I've put two images in there for you, 6 and 11, so please say if you like one, or suggest a particular image elsewhere, tell me where it is, I will put it in for you.

WD, I very much agree with you about the plume, can you suggest a few images that could be used ? Also, in the same way that 17 would seem sci-fi, wouldn't 18 suggest wikiproject painting or abstract art or something like that ? Not that I am criticizing it, I fully support it as well. Penyulap _talk 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Although come to think of it, at about 30km's on earth it's still an atmospheric plume, but the sky has gone black and the stars are out, so you know, if it were mars, or earth, wherever, it's still ok. Penyulap _talk 16:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There are conflicting reports about Shenzhou 9, there's a source saying it's unmanned[2] and another saying it's manned[3]. What should the article say?--Cattus ^talk 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I say we believe the Space.com ref. They are established as reliable and that is the one I would believe. I have never heard of the other website. They don't even give a real name for who wrote the article, just a web editor's online name.--NavyBlue84 21:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Shenzhou 9 was planned to be manned, but the plan changed, all newer reports should indicate that Shenzhou 9 will be unmanned.--Craigboy (talk) 06:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That's from rumors spreading a few days ago which came from a Chinese newspaper report that was retracted the same day it was published. This I think is the correct information: a manned mission with a crew of three some time between June and August that includes docking to and working inside Tiangong 1. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you're correct. It will be a three member crew, they will attempt to manually dock (their system is capable of docking automatically) and then enter Tiangong 1.--Craigboy (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have added a ref to the article from SpaceflightNow.com. It says it will be manned, so that is 2 reliable sources that say it.--NavyBlue84 14:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Has there been any mention in the press of a dual docking (mid mission resupply) yet ? I know they have been talking about it in planning, but I haven't had time to search the net too much, it is an interesting one to keep a very very close eye out for. Does the curtain at the back of the station remind you of the curtain in the wizard of OZ ? What will be revealed, what won't, how far will they, can they, dare they go ? It's all very exciting. I predict a manual docking attempt at the normally concealed docking port, and if all goes well, a robotic resupply at the primary already-used port. If the manual dock fails, they'll go for autodock at the already used port with a no-show for the resupply, and no mention in the press. I love this, I love surprises, I want more curtains, more secrecy, more titillation, it's brilliant. :) Penyulap _talk 04:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no hidden docking port. There is only that one.--Craigboy (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The missions to Tiangong 1 will only be a couple weeks at most. Tiangong 2 & 3 may have an additional docking port to support longer duration missions and resupply. But that is still way down the road yet.--NavyBlue84 03:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is, there is, it's the most fun I've had in ages. All the references all across the internet that say one are wrong, that's my call. I'll go with the twosies and hope that they have some success, otherwise that palace will be coming down, and it'll do it without us ever getting a picture of both ends. Well, not for like 10 years or more probably. Penyulap _talk 20:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pen, we've seen pictures of Tiangong 1. We know there is no second docking port. You've made these kind of wild assumptions before and I can never understand why.--Craigboy (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I sure have, and am very often if not almost always right on. But show me one picture of the skinny end of Tiangong 1. It's the hardest picture possible to find or get a hold of. The end between the solar panels. Penyulap _talk 03:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've yet to see one of your wild assumptions be right.--Craigboy (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article by Intraspacenews.com, and an image of the aft end and a couple of engines. Not to mention they are using APAS, which means the docking mechanism would be sticking out from the spacecraft, ie. the PMA's and shuttle docking system.--NavyBlue84 04:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if you can write me up as being wrong, which is quite possible or maybe even likely, then you can write the Chinese government up as wrong as well, so I'm in good company. But apart from maybe this time, when have I made any wild assumptions Craigboy ? Penyulap _talk 17:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll take it to the your talk page because its off topic for here.--Craigboy (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What you are proposing is that the crew will try to dock to the station's engines. This will not happen. You already ruined the ISS article, don't wreck Tiangong's too. SalopianJames (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting they will dock to the engines. I said "you can write me up as being wrong, which is quite possible or maybe even likely" the reason being I don't believe they will jettison a section to reveal another docking port. What we COULD do is write up the Chinese Government official space agency website as being wrong too. They state "The weight of Tiangong-1 is about 8 tons, and its main body is a short and thick cylinder, with a docking port on its front and rear ends." en.cmse.gov.cn

About the the unanimous delisting of the article at FAR, I had to point out to Mlm42 also, and I will declare here, that TenPoundHammer and Brad are not my sockpuppets. They have their own valid opinions on the article. Penyulap _talk 12:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, NavyBlue's photographic evidence is convincing enough. Penyulap _talk 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I would discount any source that gives a weight in tons, since the ton (and tonne) are units of mass not weight. --W. D. Graham 13:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Guidance, navigation and control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was prodded. As there are several conferences regularly on this topic for spacecraft, it seems like this topic is notable? If so, it needs sourcing. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article looks like a disambiguation page waiting to happen. Penyulap _talk 00:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Any ideas on this story? A 30 kilo sphere fell "from space" and landed in Brazil.. they haven't identified it yet; that article contains a video clip of the object. Mysterious! Mlm42 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fairly easy to identify, its probably part of the upper stage of Ariane 44L V095, which launched Thaicom 3 and BSAT-1A on 16 April 1997 (ID 1997-016C). The stage decayed over that part of Brazil at about 09:09 UTC on 22 February, predicted impact was in the state just north-east of Maranhao, but close to the border. I'm not sure where the village is, but everything else matches perfectly. --W. D. Graham 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just looked for confirmation via seesat, and somebody else has made the same conclusion, almost word-for-word here. --W. D. Graham 23:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(inserted text) I give permission for anyone to edit my text here to reflect their changing opinions, or just say what you like and someone will put it in.

* This does not imply support for any options which I have not indicated support for elsewhere in the poll. --W. D. Graham 01:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Rassvet (ISS module)
• Poisk (ISS module)
• Node Module
• Nauka (ISS module)
• Harmony (ISS module)
• Unity (ISS module)
• Kibo (ISS module) <--recently brought into line
• Zarya <-- yet another naughty module.
• Quest Joint Airlock <-- whatever, I give up.

Node modules as they are called.[4] [5] and the NM Node Module. What is what and which is which ? well, I'm asking. I came across the problem whilst helping program a Bot, so when is an (ISS module) not an (ISS module) ? Penyulap _talk 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• We only disambiguate when we have to. We have other articles named Rassvet, Poisk, Nauka, and Kibo although I would be inclined to suggest that the ISS modules are probably the primary topics for those names, and should probably be moved - compare Zarya where this has already been established. In the cases of Harmony and Unity, I don't think the ISS modules are the primary topics, so disambiguation is appropriate. The "Node Module" article claims that that is the name of the module (something I doubt)*, so in that context the presence of the word "Module" is part of the name, not disambiguation, and so disambiguation is unnecessary since there is nothing else that needs to use the same title (other than another article on the same module, which needs merging). Quest is an exception that should be brought in line with the others. --W. D. Graham 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  * The module seems to be referred to by the initials "UM", so I suspect somebody translating documents has translated a name at some point. Russian spacecraft names are not translated, instead we use an approximation of their Russian name, using Latin characters instead of Cyrillic, in line with WP:RUS (eg. Soyuz not Union, Zarya not Dawn, Poisk not Search, etc). --W. D. Graham 19:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What would you say is a fair translation ? I haven't seen any of it's inevitable nicknames or any official artistic name for it as yet.

I think UM is just the Russian abbreviation the same way as NM is the English abbreviation. I'm thinking it's 'Node module' for it's English name at the current time (but not suggesting that is the name of the article) Penyulap _talk 07:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be translated. Unless, of course, you want to move Zarya to Dawn (ISS module), Soyuz to Union (spacecraft), etc. --W. D. Graham 08:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Универсальный стыковочный модуль or (УСМ) is the UDM or universal docking module, would have carried out the original mission tasks. As far as I know, it started off in the 20 ton proton launch class. Today, the Узловой модуль or (yм) or in English Node module (NM) is a in the soyuz launch class, and it's just a ball, because the Russians have come up with the brilliant idea of keeping a space station in orbit pretty much forever. After it's finished (if the planet isn't first) they can send that sucker to Mars orbit for all I know, and it'll sit there for a rather long time. But it's all about having the oldest longest lasting station. Like I mentioned on the NM tp, it's like that big umbrella thing on top of the ROS, the science power array was on a single module, and now it's a split across the two modules. I really wouldn't suggest merging those articles. Which reminds me, someone should write those articles. Meh.

Anyhow, the Russians are calling it Node module, I mean in English, they call it "Node Module", and I'd think that "Nodal module" is probably the crap translation that someone at NASA did, as their own little idea of not confusing it with the three Node modules of the USOS. Anyhow, all I'd like to know, is should be put the little (ISS module) after the name of not. Penyulap _talk 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I see you're blaming more things on NASA.--Craigboy (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, no it shouldn't. I don't see how you could have got anything else from "We only disambiguate when we have to...[here] disambiguation is unnecessary" --W. D. Graham 08:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Craigboy, I do my best :) but sometimes I blame the Chinese, the Russians, and myself too, Meh, whoever. Well the first node module was named Unity oh wait, that's NASA again, how about we try to blame the phrase "the third and final node module" on CBS ? There was a third Node module from the beginning, but the phantom fourth Node which was known originally as "Node X" and is now referred to as "Node 4" doesn't exist if you click on the link. It certainly wasn't Russian, or a "Node module" it was just a node, but I'd love to get the word "phantom" in somewhere, actually i think I just did, twice, that's plenty for me, but "Node X" is pretty good for an article.

I think the thing here is the name "Node module" is already in English, it's what the Russians are calling it in English. So it's not like Zarya or Soyuz which are in Russian still. Although the problem arises about disambiguation because there are many Node Module (ISS module)s to choose from, and I'd object to it being Node Module (ROS module) because that would cause further confusion. So somehow, well, it's right there in the centre, not too much for and not too much against disambiguation, and therefore, I ask. Penyulap _talk 11:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is always "Russian node module" as a descriptive title, to distinguish it from all the other Node modules. I imaging it's a bit of a leap for some, but given time, the idea has some merit. Anyhow I don't much mind, I was just looking to make things uniform, which I learn is not required. Penyulap _talk 06:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, a descriptive title is not acceptable either, because we do know its name. Either we move to Uzpovoy Modul (my strong preference) per WP:RUS (that is "Modul", not "Module", the transliteration lacks an e), or we leave it where it is and let capitalisation disambiguate it. --W. D. Graham 09:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, please read m:Polls are evil, and stop trying to turn every disagreement into a poll before a detailed discussion can be held. --W. D. Graham 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mwahahaha I am evil I tell you. Sorry WD, especially now I see you've adjusted and expanded your preferences, they seem irresistible. But don't worry over the discussion, as far as I am concerned with polls they are never finished, people can just add to them any time they like, the more the merrier. Also, there is a good solid body of text now don't you think ? Although it certainly isn't finished at all. (insert) and polls are why people (!)loved the blackout so much, and why ANI is such a (!)lovely place. How about I give up "trying to turn every disagreement into a poll before a detailed discussion can be held", if you give up trying to turn every edit into a dispute using templates before one single word of discussion has taken place ? Penyulap _talk 07:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It might be just another 'penyulap moment', maybe I'm wrong, but is Tiangong 3 part of the Chinese Space station ? I opened a discussion at Talk:Core Cabin Module prior to suggesting a merge, because it kind of started off as a Eureka moment, or intuition, then I thought is this wp:or, but it's not that, and then I thought, well, this is just clearing up a slight misunderstanding of the references given, it effects a few articles so i mention it here. Penyulap _talk 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Is referencing of astronautix.com considered to be a reliable source? Prad2609 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have been discussed at RS/N. My personal opinion would be that it can be used, but should be used with great caution - while I haven't seen any howling inaccuracies (as opposed, for instance, to some published-by-big-names "clearly reliable" books I've read), there are, on some occasions, cases of incompleteness (in launch lists, for instance). Basically, only use it if you must, would be my view, and don't expect articles using it more than tangientally to make FA! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it a discussion worth having? It seems to have information that is very difficult to find offline or online. Prad2609 (talk) 03:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

First, welcome to Wikiproject Spaceflight Prad2609. Go straight ahead and use it, it is one of our best and most reliable online sources. It is true that there are occasional problems, but it's an excellent place to start. Trust your own intuition. Also NASA and the Chinese space agencies are often wrong too.(Sorry Craigboy, I couldn't resist) Penyulap _talk 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a discussion that is definitely worth having; I would say it's useful for compiling a lot of information, but I no longer believe astronautix.com meets Wikipedia's standards of a "reliable source". It's use (together with several other "hobbyist" website) is widespread across spaceflight articles; I think we should be replacing them with better sources.

For example, I emailed Mark Wade about his page called Mir NASA-1 over a year ago, regarding some problems with that page, and didn't get any response. The article still claims Shannon Lucid was the "First American aboard Mir for extended stay." But what about Norman Thagard's 100+ day stay? Also, why is this article called "Mir NASA-1", when NASA itself refers to it as NASA-2? So it's a useful resource for getting quick information, but as others have pointed out, it's not perfect; and even when these mistakes / inconsistencies are exposed, they aren't fixed or explained.

What worries me most, is that due to a lack of better sources, a mistake at astronautix.com may be unnoticeable to us, and if that mistake makes it's way onto Wikipedia (or other sources!), it may go unnoticed for a long time - and that's the last thing we want to happen. No information is better than incorrect information. So I think we should be weaning the spaceflight articles off of this source. Mlm42 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

_{Ditto NASA :) -pen}

Yes, NASA isn't always right either.. but at least it satisfies Wikipedia's standards of a "reliable source", for spaceflight stuff. You know, "verifiability, not truth", and all that. Mlm42 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If Astronautix and another reliable source say the same thing, why not use'em both? Nothing like having lots of ref's to back up a statement. I agree its not always correct, but sometimes its the only thing that meets the standard (ie. its not some unknown person's blog or a forum), that is considered reliable and has the info needed.--NavyBlue84 21:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"For example, I emailed Mark Wade about his page called Mir NASA-1 over a year ago, regarding some problems with that page, and didn't get any response." I also sent him some emails a few years back about inacurracies in his spacesuit articles, never got a response and the pages were never corrected.Craigboy (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with Mlm42 and Craigboy. Astronautix.com is not really up to snuff as a reliable source for Wikipedia standards in 2012. So I would support having the formal discussion of the matter at RS/N (the reliable source noticeboard) which was a question first asked, above, by Prad2609. In anyone starts such a discussion, please invite us over there to it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, his site is not reliable because you can't contact him ? Don't any dead authors qualify as reliable sources ? Contacting them may not be a determining factor.

Do you have some examples of specific errors, like what was it you had asked him, can you tell me the questions he did not answer, so I can see if there is an overlooked explanation for this. Penyulap _talk 21:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't disqualify books from being used when they have errors (unless, of course, they're plentiful and egreious); arguing that a (potentially) otherwise-reliable web source isn't because "the author doesn't make corrections" is...odd reasoning. The solution is simple: where it's clear there's an error, don't use it for a source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think the reasoning is: The site isn't reliable because it's a self-published source.. and I'd rather not make an exception to that rule, because he doesn't fix mistakes even when pointed out to him. Mlm42 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The flip side of that is that Astronautix has been cited in multiple published books as a source used for them. [6], [7] (and others), including a work by the Australian National University. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre ([8]). I think that indicates that it's considered reliable by peers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you guys sent email to him, but that's not the same as him receiving or ignoring anything. It may well mean that the email never made it past his spam filter, or was overlooked by mistake. That happens a lot with people who do, or must, publish their email address on the web, they attract every spambot in the universe. Penyulap ☏ 10:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

@Bushranger, Wikipedia has also been cited in several books and other sources.. that doesn't make it a "reliable source" by our standards, even though it is considered reliable by many around the world. I guess it's all dependent on what facts one is using astronautix.com for. It's useful for checking timelines, getting dates, and basic information, so I don't think many will complain if you're just citing mundane things (but I'd still prefer a non-self-published source). Just keep in mind that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Mlm42 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for pity's sake... SalopianJames (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Merged all into Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Userbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), will rewrite the documentation later to explain the image parameter. All further additions should probably be discussed. --W. D. Graham 17:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[A] for effort, but also, in a way, _(facepalm) I think userboxes are a personal thing for each user. I am sure that most people don't want to use my Vostok userbox, I am sure that the Lunar spaceman is the most popular. How about we combine WDGraham's good idea of a random displayed box on the wikiproject talkpage, and have a link to a nice selection of individual boxes ? also, I'd suggest that the original userbox remains as the lunar man as many people liked it and had chosen it that way (it's hard to speculate if they liked it or not beyond choosing it). I'm sorry if I caused offense with the extra box or two the other day, I was delighted that a new spaceflight member had chosen one of the new ones I made, and I noticed he liked editing India's space program articles. I also noted there wasn't one tailored to India, and at the same time I popped in India's first satellite I put in the sputnik one as well, as someone mentioned that as a preference in the project image discussion.

Does anyone like/dislike (I promise no polls) the idea of WDGraham's random one and a link, or shall we make it say (actually I was about to suggest three, you know, so that the most often used ones are there, just in case one comes up that people aren't really interested in and it puts them off the idea of having a userbox. Then I thought, well, what about my animation fetish ? ) I can make an animated userbox that shows a few images, and put a link there to a full selection, is that an idea ? Penyulap _talk 01:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've chased them down to a page here and there are a few more than we originally thought. Penyulap _talk 04:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you don't seem to understand how the new userbox works. You can specify an image, so for example if I used ((Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Userbox|image=1)), then the image of Buzz Aldrin on the moon will always appear. Secondly, if you ever attempt to lie to or deceive users participating in a discussion like this again, then I think we will need to consider taking action against you as a disruptive editor. There weren't "a few more than you originally thought" I checked the page histories and you just created them this morning. Your lack of judgement and professionalism on this issue is absolutely appalling, and I would ask you to explain yourself. --W. D. Graham 07:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the misunderstanding here is caused because you're taking things too seriously. Breeding userboxes implies biological functioning of inanimate objects. I've added a pataphysical description of my recent editing to the personification ChiZeroOne made earlier. "a few more than you originally thought" implies that the pesky little things have been breeding further, and the can of fly spray implies they can be stopped from breeding out of control like pest insects if you spray them, understand ? I'm matching the English language variant and tone of the conversation which ChiZeroOne set when beginning the section. (and adding pictures, I love pictures!!!) If you think this is a serious problem I invite you to tell ANI immediately, I'm sure they can explain all this to you better than I can. I added a link to the page where I 'chased them down to' which is half of the "How about we combine WDGraham's good idea of a random displayed box on the wikiproject talkpage, and have a link to a nice selection of individual boxes ?"

I read the documentation of the userbox you created, and I like it. But I predict the first major objections that other editors may have, the default image is a random image, this changes the image on the userpages of editors who had the box long ago. You've changed the image on their user page in a way that may not be entirely popular with other editors. I am not saying it is a bad thing, just predicting the first objection, that's all. I think it is easy if you do as I have done and don't edit the original userbox, but rather make another userbox so that the one that is on other people's userpage isn't changed, just in case they aren't happy with the changes that are made (which I think are very nice btw) Penyulap _talk 21:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, most of your first paragraph is arguing obtuse points of semantics rather than actually addressing the issue at hand. I don't think this has approached an ANI level yet, however you'd have to admit that somebody claiming to have found three templates which they had clearly created less than an hour beforehand is clearly somewhat lacking in integrity. With regards the random image, any user who cares enough to change it can easily add the image parameter specified above to make the userbox static. Cluttering up the projectspace with dozens of userboxes, all of which duplicate the function of a central template, is not a constructive use of our time, nor is it necessary to this project's goals. There is absolutely no advantage to having multiple templates doing exactly the same thing as a single customisable template, and in fact I am fairly sure that most of the individual boxes technically meet the criteria for speedy deletion. --W. D. Graham 22:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I see it as perfectly harmonious with the idea that user boxes can in fact be breeding, it's called humour, and it's the style set by the topic of this section. I like it.

I agree with your suggestion about "cluttering up the projectspace", in fact I agreed with you about 9 hours before you wrote it, which is why I have already suggested that we have "a link to a nice selection of individual boxes". Actually I saw it 5 days ago, as demonstrated in my edit summary, so take your pick. I still agree with you and you can't stop me agreeing with you on that point, _{(well you might if you change your mind, or I do, it's all good)}.

I don't agree that any user can change the image displayed in the userbox, they must be aware of it in order to change it, and can't change it from the past, it has to be done from the present. I see that you have addressed the problem by editing User:Prad2609's userpage which fixes the problem for that editor at least, but there are a few dozen links to the template, it seems a lot of work, also there are other possible styles of template, which makes it a little harder. Artistic expression might be a little restricted by compressing every possible template into one, for example, what would happen to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Userbox ISS kibo ? I think something similar to that might be desired by an editor someday, or possibly not. It's hard work to address such compatibility issues using a single userbox isn't it ? Penyulap _talk 00:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that all the similar ones can be combined, but still have easy to cut'n'paste single lines for the beginners who are not sure about passing codes to templates yet ?

Also, is there a way to optimize the image size for each image's aspect, some images are narrow or stubby and they don't appear the same size just yet when they display in the ubx. Penyulap _talk 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This user is a member of WikiProject Spaceflight.

((Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/UserboxA1))

What about this one WD, it shows lots of pics, how about it for a default box ? Penyulap _talk 07:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, We have a bunch of Articles about ISS Modules,right?Well,that's correct but can we create infoboxes for those articles?We need specifications , launch, orbital tug imformation,etc.For some modules, deorbit dates are also esssential.--Monareal (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me.I'd like to say that my Section has not been answered even after 3 days. Is this Wikiproject Dead Defunct or Semi-Active or fullly Inactive? This Section seems to be an Intresting Section. I like this section to be made real. I really want this to be passed. Don't recognise this as a provisional thing. This is a point!This is!--Monareal (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Monareal, sorry for the delay, I was in hospital myself, and others might be at work and all sorts of places. Also, for me, I do not look here very often, you are always welcome to write on my user talkpage and I will be happy to talk to you, I will notice your message fast if you write it there.

Your idea makes sense, can I assist you with it ? I can write a box for you if you would like. Can you help me by describing what the box should look like, and what information you would like it to contain ? So far you mention:

• Name(s)
• launch
• orbital tug
• deorbit date

I can think of

• purpose
• space agency / nation
• launch site
• dimensions
• mass
• orbital data
• catalog numbers (serial numbers for launch)
• country/(ies) of manufacture
• views inside /outside
• views in factory /at launchsite (maybe in the article instead ? I don't know)
• docking ports and type

Penyulap ☏ 18:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There's one already: Template:Space station module. SalopianJames (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we improve it ? like where it says Width, it says only in the docs that it means the whole station, rather than the module. Penyulap ☏ 10:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I figure there are plenty of ways to improve the infoboxes (IB)s for modules and also for the space stations as well. It came to my attention mostly because of PALZ9000's abilities, it made me have a look at the layout of the current IB and see it's a mess really, there is a lot of information, but it is not well organized. I shall make some new ones of course, but I'd appreciate input from as many editors as possible. But if people have nothing to offer that is no problem, I can do it just the same, and I'll still appreciate opinions after the new ones are in, either way is great. Penyulap ☏ 00:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay penyulap, I have posted it on your talk page.--Monareal (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm figuring to simply abandon the standard infoboxes for some space stations, whilst the uniformity is lovely, there are serious limitations to their practicality. Everything before Mir is nice and uniform, everything since is anything but generic.

How do you put in a launch date for OPSEK ? it's ridiculous. It's in orbit now, it's more a separation date. The ISS squeezes in a selection of launch sites which is cool, but with OPSEK and beyond, it's not about launch sites like a single rocket is about a launch site. It's accepting launches from anywhere on earth as well as interstellar transfers from deep space. It's a station, not a rocket. It emerges from the orbital factory where it's built. It is separated with great cheer as the robot carries it off to it's new inclination and altitude. Hey, I wonder, will there be some people in both stations, so they can shake hands and wave through the hatches and say goodbye ? cool ! won't that be something. That will be the launch date, and it doesn't relate to a geographical location on earth the way a single rocket does.

There are other small things, easily addressed like picture links, that's where I started changing the Chinese space station template, before WD had it deleted. It's essential for artistic as well as practical reasons. I had the picture in the infobox like this 中國空間站二 but redirecting to 中國空間站 which was larger, rather than greater detail, as there was no great detail available. But for the ISS, the Gif animation in the infobox needs to redirect to the image gallery of the construction stages of the station, or a gallery of it's current form, whatever editors like. Going from an animation to exactly the same sized animation is so pointless.

Then there is the orbital data which is nice to have for some stations, but collapsible sections that can be laid out in a flexible manner would be cool. Where there is simply two columns it's just getting in the way of writing and formatting the data, like someone using scissors on the page you're writing on. At least within the collapsible sections, it'd be nice to have a more flexible method of entering the data.

There are plenty of reasons like this, comments anyone ? objections, ideas ? Penyulap ☏ 02:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Russian International News Agency is donating medium sized versions of some the images in their archives. WikiProject Spaceflight has a request page going if you feel like any images would make a good addition, but remember they are only planning on donating a certain amount per year.--Craigboy (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll ask here as there is a greater likelyhood of response. It strikes me that we do not have, nor have as yet requested, an image of Yuri Gagarin in the role he is most famous for, as spacesuited pilot of Vostok 1. We are currently requesting this picture which frankly could be any guy in a military uniform, and we already have images of the man's likeness. I'm not sure what, historically and educationally speaking, this image adds compared to others. Here are a few pictures from the archive to show what I mean, [9] (colour and representative), [10] (B&W but one of the better images of him in Vostok 1), [11] (demonstrates what it was like to be in the Vostok capsule), [12] (striking, maybe not as good an angle). We can discuss the merits of each over the others but I think any of these or similar ones would be preferable, anyone else agree? ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The picture was chosen because it was highest quality color picture I could find close to his 1961 flight. All the images we currently have of him are black and white, have his head covered, and show very little detail of his face. We can request a second picture of him but I wouldn't list it in the "Top Priority" section. Also, I'm not sure why you think a portrait of Yuri Gargarin could be an image of "any guy in a military uniform" while a suited picture of him that covers up many of his facial features is not.--Craigboy (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's my point, the main educational reason for that image is to show his likeness (other than that it is just a guy in uniform), but we already have free images showing that. They may not be the best quality but at least they exist, as a result I cannot see that image being top priority over others for which there is no equivalent. There are however to my knowledge no free versions on him actually in Vostok 1 which is far more important to the notability of the subject. As I explained, the reasoning for an image of him in Vostok 1 is not to show his likeness - i'm not comparing it to the portrait of him - it is illustration of an important historical event not freely available anywhere. What is more, a picture of him in Vostok 1 is of use to far more spaceflight articles in Wikipedia including Vostok, Space capsules in general, Human spaceflight...etc the list goes on. In fact that category says it all, the only photo of him even in a spacesuit there is highly likely copyvio... ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The list is arranged by both historical significance and image quality (which is why you see something like "Salyut 1 crew inside station" so far down the list). The images we have now do a very poor job of showing his likeness (especially in comparison to his American counterparts) that's why the image is so high on the list. The "color" images you posted aren't color images, but colored black and white photos, the original black and white versions of those photos would probably be preferred. A picture of him suited in Vostok would be a nice to have but RIAN doesn't seem to have many quality pictures of that.--Craigboy (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I suspected the colourisation, I prefer the B&W ones in the archive on quality grounds anyway. I don't mind asking for both the portrait and one of Gagarin in Vostok; but in terms of historical significance (rather more than Salyut 1!), the fact that no free versions of said event currently exist, and importance to a wide range of spaceflight articles, an image of Gagarin in Vostok should IMO be a higher priority. Re the quality, I defy you to find better quality images of this which we have a chance of obtaining free versions of. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But the images you found are pretty low quality for what it seems you want to represent. And by "event" do you mean him in the capsule during training or him in the capsule prior to launch? What kind of image are you looking for? One that shows a cosmonaut within Vostok or does it specifically need to be Yuri. The high quality portrait of Yuri currently listed also has a wide range of applicability.--Craigboy (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Where have we got to on this, folks? Don't want to miss the opportunity! Colds7ream (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We put a lot of requests in, but we haven't heard anything back yet. As far as I know, no more images have been donated yet. --GW… 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

More images have been donated but no spaceflight ones yet. See here.--Craigboy (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

More images have been donated, only a few are spaceflight related. I don't believe any are the ones requested but they did release a picture of some Harry Potter books on a shelf.--Craigboy (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Which has since been deleted because they don't own the rights to the book covers.--Craigboy (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So they're releasing irrelevant images and none of the ones we asked for? Sounds about right for a Soviet agency... :-S SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, we're getting our share...five completely replaceable images of a mockup of Luna 1 in a museum (which are unhelpfully labelled as being the real thing), plus a diagram which could have easily been produced Inkscape and a picture of a couple of radio operators waiting to hear from it. Seven images of a memorial to Korolev, inside and outside views of his house, and a picture of a model aircraft he built. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They've donated pictures of Valentina Tereshkova, some are pretty good but none are the ones requested so at this point I see no reason to continue requesting pictures.Craigboy (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I have uploaded the photos I took this morning of Space Shuttle Discovery flying over Washington, D.C. It was really cool - it flew over three times! So, my photos are uploaded on Commons. Perhaps ya'll will find some use for them, as I don't generally venture into the "spaceflight" world of wiki :) The link: Sarah's photos - enjoy! Sarah (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Use it on the Discovery Artcle and start a new section there. It might be useful--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like the downlink has 5 options to choose

• Someone else should do the January 2012 issue
• It has to be made inactive
• Someone should delete the January 2012 issue and make the April 2012 issue.
• Someone should do the April 2012 issue but also do the January 2012 issue.
• Someone should do the the March 2011 issue.

--Monareal (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Death Aniversery?--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at which infobox should be used for ground stations, launch sites etc. I've added a cut down version of Template:Infobox military structure to Sohae Satellite Launching Station but before I roll out similar to other spaceports I wanted to check with you. I think it's important that we have metadata, a map with locationmap etc for all these sites. Thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The articles about ground things I tend to work on use the NRHP infobox (e.g. Saturn V Dynamic Test Vehicle), so they have the same info. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with Template:Infobox military structure? -- ke4roh (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since it is a launch pad, what about this infobox?--NavyBlue84 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox launch pad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could be used, but it is primarily intended for pads, not whole sites. --W. D. Graham 14:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently this is the image being used. My only problem with it is that its a gif, and because I'm a bit ADD the image makes it very hard for me to focus while I'm working on a talk page so can we use the non-animated version instead?--Craigboy (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it. I don't know why an animated version was used in the first place.--NavyBlue84 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, but my mind can still make the exhaust throb, lol. Might have to look carefully, or mouseover, just to freeze it a few times. Penyulap ☏ 03:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Craigboy (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Penu!Penu!--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, someone proposed to create a WP:ISS, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/WikiProject ISS

70.49.124.147 (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just leaving a note about ((TLS-R)). This edit linking to howmanypeopleareinspace.com had incorrect citation syntax which made a total of 65 articles appear with big red text and get listed at Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. It's an IP so i don't know who it is but just watch for ERROR messages especially on highly visible templates like that. Thanks :-) benzband (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't really see what that particular website adds to the bibliography. I would suggest we simply remove it. --W. D. Graham 14:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed it. It isn't used as a reference on any of those pages, and even if we were tracking the number of people in space on those (which thankfully we aren't), it's only valid for current information not for any past data, so useless on all the pre-2012 pages. Shimgray | talk | 06:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any article to display this image?--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow ! that is so cool. ! Penyulap ☏ 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I have no idea. Penyulap ☏ 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And Your Higness Dr Sir Lord Earl King Sultan President Pope Nizam Penyulap George VIII Bahsir I Mirmanukoza John Paul III Benedict XVIII Mir Jakir Ali Khan, please see your talk page--Mir Almaat 1 S1 (previously Monareal) (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And any other comments?--Mir Almaat 1 S1 (previously Monareal) (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it on the Orion article. And I'll upload an April 17 test too.--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a CFD for Category:SpaceX space launch vehicles taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 25. Any input would be welcome.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys! Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I've noticed there is a bit of a problem with how Wikipedia covers the effects of spaceflight on human physiology. First off, we have the article Human adaptation to spaceflight This article, I believe, should be the main article on this topic (though perhaps it would be better titled "Effects of spaceflight on human physiology"). Currently, it is a pretty okay article which details many of the things that happen to people living in space, such as space adaptation syndrome, spaceflight osteopenia, and potentially space exposure.

Next, we have Space medicine. This article (while definitely a legit and distinct topic to the main article), is a total mess, and retreads much of the main article. In my opinion, it needs a lot of editing, and most of the repeated material should be moved into the main article.

There is also Space nursing (seriously?) and Neuroscience in Space. They could both probably be merged into space medicine, and some of the latter again retreads material of the main 'Human adaptation to spaceflight' article. Not sure what to make of Astronautical hygiene, but a lot of it either falls under Life support system, or, yet again, should be in the main article. Does anyone agree/have any thoughts on the topic? Anxietycello (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of enacting all the changes myself anyway, unless anyone has any objections? Anxietycello (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if Space nursing was an article, a title as ambiguous as that would so have to die. Neuroscience in Space might use some coloring in, it is a proper sub topic on it's own, there is absolutely no end to the material on that subject, so it's good to have a place where those editors can work undisturbed by bungee exercising machines and the like. Astronautical hygiene is just hideously titled, it needs a proper descriptive title along the lines of spaceflight pathogenics or spaceflight related pathogens or something like that, but just ask at the medical wikiproject and those guys will help choose the appropriate title for you, or James would have suggestions, he's a Doctor. There is plenty or material in that field as well, not about space toilets, but about the moldy nasty bugs that inhabit zero-g environments, there are problems there, which will effect things like the trip to Mars and so forth, so it's pretty good as a separate subject, just do the usual summary kind of thing as you please.

The two tiles Human adaption to spaceflight and Space medicine describe the same topic, anything that goes in one would go into the other, so merging mixing and sorting the material is a good idea. Life support systems are simply mechanical related stuff, nothing to do with medicine at all. It should only be touched on where required, like the atmosphere in the ship doesn't thermosyphon like on earth, it's all fan-driven and so there are stagnant areas, and the sealed environment with the humidity produced by the crew makes for a perfect bug breeding ground. Like that. Those are my thoughts for what it's worth and I leave the decisions up to you. Penyulap ☏ 22:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I proposed that space nursing be merged into space medicine. Also, what to do with Bioastronautics? It seems to overlap with Astronautical hygiene/spaceflight pathogenics. Anxietycello (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that space nursing be merged into space medicine. Bioastronautics overlaps a few things, it's a redirect to space medicine for starters, then the first 2 paragraphs are a delete, 3 is a sentence or two for medicine and the rest is space biology, 4 is life support, 5,6 to space medicine. That's my 2c. Penyulap ☏ 00:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of Progress flights#Purpose of this article Penyulap ☏ 23:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I want a green signal for these two articles

1. 1994 Progress-Mir collision
2. 1997 Mir depressurization collision

--Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish! (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Although they might take the article name of the progress mission, but that's beside the point, just go for it ! Penyulap ☏ 01:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Makane, The progress mission (both of them have) no articles.--RDF Energia (talk:Nordak Island Communication Station) 05:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just go to List of Progress flights, at the top of the page, click on M24 and M34 and that's where they go. Let me know on my tp if you need help. Penyulap ☏ 08:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dr Penyulap, This is what I saw:

--RDF Energia (talk:Nordak Island Communication Station) 09:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've set up a basic article for you to work from at Progress M-34. I'll do the other one later. --W. D. Graham 11:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a testspace of my own(User:Mir Almaat 1 S1/Progress Workspace 1).No Thanks for the page. But can you gather data for progress m-24 and enter it on than workspace?--RDF Energia (talk:Nordak Island Communication Station) 11:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the articles about the spacecraft are already done now, so I suggest you just merge your content into them. I agree with Penyulap that the Progress articles are the best place to cover this. --W. D. Graham 17:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No need, I've collected only some info and they are of no useRDF Energia | ☏ 05:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, we were going to need articles on these Progress spacecraft anyway, so they exist now, and if you decide at a later date that you do want to contribute to them, then you will, of course, be able to. --W. D. Graham 07:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What the Hell are you talking about?RDF Energia | ☏ 08:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles exist now, so if you decide you do want to write something about the collisions, you can add it to them. I'd also suggest you keep an eye on your tone in discussions such as this. --W. D. Graham 09:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The H word is meaningless in most places that speak english outside of the US, and maybe places with superstrong US culture. It's just a word everywhere else. Just read 'what on earth are you talking about' Penyulap ☏ 10:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Lets not get into this but civility is very important, especially in written text where tone is hard to define.--Craigboy (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to edit and stick this in ..."Two ships crashed into the MIR space station, one traveling at about 11 km/hr, and punctured the similarly designed hull of Spektr, causing depressurization of the station. Lazutkin ordered Foale to prepare the Soyuz, bringing the ship's computer online in preparation for abandoning ship if needed, while Commander Tsibliyev and Lazutkin fought and succeeded to bring the station under control. While the crew could feel in their ears the air pressure falling, they first removed air ducts and cables from the passageway into the damaged module, cutting two cables with a knife and sealing the hatch, then took manual control of the station engines to counteract the spin produced by escaping atmosphere, while a cascading chain of alarms were set off as the station's electrical systems went offline because solar arrays no longer pointed towards the sun. The crew used spacesuits to fix some of the module's systems weeks later, but the breach in the hull was never repaired. " and if you want to know where I got it from, well, so do I. Argh ! (That's Doh! in American) Penyulap ☏ 10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't put in copyrighted text from elsewhere. Thanks! Secretlondon (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's copyright penyulap, sorry, i mean i can't recall where the refs for it is. Penyulap ☏ 14:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The first one did'nt crash. It only touched the core module's fore port a bit roughly. There was absolutely no problem only, the mir moved a few millimeters back and then the progress Moved back in emergency mode. Operated by some cosmonaut , it moved back about a few hundred metres while Mir continued on its 48767th revolution.RDF Energia | ☏ 10:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The outer space article has undergone considerable expansion and citation during the past year, and it just completed a peer review. I have it rated B-class for astronomy, so I'd like to ask if somebody from this project could review it and see if the article now satisfies your criteria for a B-class article? Also, if you have any constructive suggestions, please could you post them to the article's talk page? In the future I plan to take the article through for a GA rating, so I'd like to polish up any outstanding issues first. Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As there was no response, I'll assume no interest and bump it up to a B. Bye. RJH (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Marshall Space Flight Center's Image Archive (aka Marshall Image Exchange) has about ~4200 image and movie files which are in PD as a work of NASA. I'd like to do a batch upload of the archive to the commons, but first, I'd prefer to get an OTRS ticket filed. I've emailed the listed contacts but haven't received a response. Could someone more familiar with the Marshall Space Flight Center contact them and get an OTRS permission ticket filed? Smallman12q (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have to ask more experienced people like like WDGraham. He is busy in real life, But after about three weeks, he may be able to reply.--Monareal (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked WDGraham to comment on this. I've also asked LoriLee who heads the US Wiki GLAM program...but she says that she has no contacts at NASA=(.Smallman12q (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've filed a bot request at commons:Commons:Bots/Requests/Smallbot 3. Feel free to comment.Smallman12q (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently improved our Jupiter Icy Moon Explorer article, pretty much rewriting the lead and other improvements, based on its selection by ESA. While reading some news articles on the subject I noticed this new one by IBT,[13]. It appears to have copied whole lines verbatim!

I wouldn't have much problem with that, the whole reason I edit scientific/spaceflight articles is to improve public understanding, but it is a real cheek when they claim copyright over the article and I doubt they'd let it be if it were the other way round. What can be done in such situatons? What little pieces on information there is seem a bit contradictory. ChiZeroOne (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Even though the article is spaceflight, I'd figure the topic would be copyright, I think the wikipedia copyvio noticeboards may be the best place to find people who know. Even though it is off-wiki, I still think you'd find the experts haunt those boards more than here. As for me, I'm clueless, sorry. Penyulap ☏ 10:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, in the absence of a dedicated board regarding the issue I thought it best to bring it up here first. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen text I wrote for the Chinese space station article being used to teach English to Japanese students and thought (facepalm) because my own skill is poor. Penyulap ☏ 17:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The worst situation I've seen with something like this is some overzealous admin or editor new to the topic deleting content in an article as a copyvio when in fact the original source of that information is the Wikipedia article itself (thus not a copyvio... at least on Wikipedia). I've even seen some publishers have the guts to send a take-down notice to the WMF on content copied wholesale from Wikipedia and other sorts of games. At least try to note on the talk page when you see this so creeps who copy Wikipedia content don't win and get away with it and claim that content as their own. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we need to think about notability for satellites. Is every satellite notable? Should we have articles from Kosmos 1 to Kosmos 2479? There are things to say about all of them of course, but I don't like the idea of producing 100 Oko articles for them to be deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Notability says individual planes are not notable - but planes are pretty common. I think we need more than just articles on satellite types - what makes an individual satellite notable?

Significant coverage in reliable sources covers most things, and most are independent of the subject. Is coverage in a table enough? Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects) wants "significant commentary" on an object in a publication not just presence in a list. However they all get coverage when they launch.

We've got Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Launch_articles which says payload not rocket launch and I think we've generally considered how the satellite got into orbit as part of the satellite's article. Any thoughts? Secretlondon (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• The criterion we currently use is if there is enough information to write an article then it can be considered notable. All attempts to change this have failed, and now without causing significant ill-feeling within the project, so I would strongly suggest we leave it as it is; this is a can of worms that should never be opened again. --W. D. Graham 07:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay. No problem. Secretlondon (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm thinking that it might be nice to add drawings of orbits to some of our articles. Is there any free software that would give me a plot of an orbit if I fed it the orbit's characteristics? Thanks Secretlondon (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know of a free program. Our company uses STK Astrogator from AGI software. They frequently will allow a company to do a time-limited short-term software license for a couple of months. Perhaps a really serious Wikipedia editor, one who wanted to generate a number of graphics for Wikipedia, might get AGI to do a "temp license" for improving Wikipedia articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but I expect the output from such a program won't be free (as in content not money) enough to use in Wikipedia anyway. I've found gpredict which plots ground tracks on public domain maps from NASA. However it needs to be fed Two-line element sets which I'm not sure are correct (or I need a better source), especially for the military things I'm plotting. It seems to be the best I can find anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I can create images of the orbits, especially if you can describe what you want, or point to a copyright image so I have an idea where you are going with it. For example, are you after something different for each satellite, are you after a frame as well as a track, maybe something showing the plane itself shaded in ? If you can point to something it would help with describing it. Penyulap ☏ 23:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. They are molniya orbits but I need to do some more research to identify what I think is the most useful - a map showing the different orbital positions for oko US-K satellites. They are 40 deg apart apparently and are described by ascending node, but we need better than that to draw it. I have the info in papers here - I just need to pull it out. Secretlondon (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

However if you are bored/looking for a wikijob and can draw there are endless drawings of satellites and other things to do. If you're stuck for ideas just yell and we can come up with suggestions :) Secretlondon (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got enough to do, but it's pretty much not in articles, (glare Craigboy) well, it is in articles, but I can't see the need to make another chinese space station image at the moment so I just fiddle instead as it lasts longer.

Static images of the orbits are easy, but a full anim of a molniya changeover is beyond the software I have found so far, I'd have to go frame by frame, so it will have to wait a few months at least until I find the right software, health permitting. I do want to do a few proper rendered spacecraft anims though, but you don't need that for the orbits because of the scale. Rotating Earths are common, so it's just a matter of drawing on the satellites, actually I could hand draw that I guess. Penyulap ☏ 03:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think an anim would be great - but a static drawing was what I was thinking of. I'm not sure ground tracks pick up the orbital weirdness very well though. I need to think how best to explain it, which probably involves undertstanding it better myself ;) Secretlondon (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, I've been meaning to ask you this for a while now, what is it with you and Craigboy? You've made negative references to him in a few unrelated discussions, and I'm a little concerned about it. --W. D. Graham 13:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an 'in' thing between the two of us and no significant negativity is intended by it. Basically there are image opportunities with the Chinese Space Station and OPSEK space station, however I can't see the point in making images for those articles when in the case of the CSS, Craigboy isn't onboard, and I want him onboard with all images being documented, and in the case of OPSEK there is a nonfree CGI, although I haven't brought that up, as there is not yet a substitute in the works, as the existing CSS image would seem to me to be the first step.

Possibly a combination of the two, a static trajectory path with three animated satellites and animated Earth, but the path itself is static in the image. I can do it that way I think. Penyulap ☏ 15:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got some ground tracks out of gpredict. It needs a TLE which I can't find for older craft but seems to be okay apart from that. It doesn't really demonstrate the weird orbit but it's what a molniya orbit looks like as a ground track.

Secretlondon (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

cool, so do you want help with 2D or 3D images ? Penyulap ☏ 02:10, 5 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I do but I'm struggling to understand what we need. I'll see if I can pull some details together. Secretlondon (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Is this WikiProject aware of Portal:Human Health and Performance in Space? -- John of Reading (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just what we need. We can't even maintain the ones we've already got. --W. D. Graham 20:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'll take care of it. Penyulap ☏ 00:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The person who set it up has only really done that - I think there's better things for people to be working on to be honest. Secretlondon (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly is, there are 1,345 stubs, which is about 1,340 more than I can be bothered with. Anyhow Jssteil is doing a good job of writing an article single-handed, there is a lot to be said for that. I had asked Sarah at the teahouse to open discussion, however when Jssteil had a look at that, must have figured it wasn't relevant or somewhat boring (I compute relevance highest), anyhow I left a note on the user talkpage and went a lot better than that by engaging them Oceans 11 style :) as I don't care to see them bitten. Given pageviews are exclusively the editor and people here, it's no priority at all to move, if someone saw the page they wouldn't need to pluck out their eyes, it's a great page. For an opening effort, it's pretty good to be a few hundred up the article quality list all by yourself. Penyulap ☏ 02:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Left the vault carrying the bags. Penyulap ☏ 10:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I note it says "This portal was created by Universities Space Research Association (USRA) with funding provided by National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Human Research Program.". Give us your moneys instead! Secretlondon (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that notice should probably be removed per WP:OWN. --W. D. Graham 13:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the proper way not to bite is to go and make some improvements first. So on one hand feel free to help keep the Zero readers per day(outside of us, see pageview stats) who browse wikipedia credit card in hand looking for already funded government institutions to donate money to from donating money to NASA (did I say nasa again ?), by all means free to turn your attention away from the thousand other stubs to this one which is receiving attention from two good editors just to cause arguments. On the other hand WD, if you feel we should all take more expedient steps to stamp out ownership rather than taking our time, then I'm right there with you and will be happy to move things along faster, although, of course, I'll prioritise my efforts according to how many editors are effected and in what article. Naturally we can cover more ground if you take one article and I take another, anything to help.

I think it's a lovely idea to help build up the page, help Jssteil put some 'meat on it's bones' in a harmonious way and address trivial issues afterwards just prior to wiki-linking the page and traffic arriving. Currently it's indeterminate whether it shall be a portal or an article, as we've had discussion on this talkpage recently in regards to space medicine. Penyulap ☏ 14:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have already established proper working relations with the editor through editing one of the pages, as shown on their talkpage, and will address the issues raised before linking the page up (or assisting moving or merging), so please realise it has sufficient attention. Penyulap ☏ 15:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello all, i want to appologize that i have deleted the empty templates on August and September of the R-2 rocket. I haven't find some starts more in Enceclopedia astronautica then i have entered. I can't see the sense in this templates, cause there is no date and outcome and all flights on this month are listed. I want to avoid of blocking me. There i want from you an permission to delete them. I don't know that i must fill the 'edit summary' line. I do not want to do a vandalism on Wikipedia.

Best regards achth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achth (talk • contribs) 16:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! I can see from your user page that you are interested in old rockets :-) However you didn't delete - you blanked (you need to be an admin to delete). You also removed information - it wasn't empty - look. They are missile tests. Also Encylopedia Astronautica isn't a great source - there are better places. Secretlondon (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I sent you the warning was because you kept removing stuff without explaining why; I suspected you meant well, but you wouldn't stop and discuss it. With regards to these launches, even if there is no specific information on when the launch occurred, we should still record that it did happen. If I remember correctly, I added those to the article but forgot to reference them; they probably came from Jonathan McDowell's list of suborbital launches. It would seem that since I added them he has updated the list with more precise dates. --W. D. Graham 11:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• New Horizons Mission time: 8y 360d 10h 50m 18s
• Mars Science Laboratory Mission time: 11y 337d 8h 46m 11s

I had this template on my userpage for quite some time. Would it be interesting to put such counters on actual infoboxes for the spacecraft? I can develop the template further if so. This would be the ETA to the planet, asteroid or whatever is the target. Can be customized more for data such as "expected mission termination". -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 01:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

yes, there are parser arguments that can cut up the output of that template, also, you can examine the code of the template and play with it until everything shows what you want it to show. I think I usually look up wp:magic words and Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. there are examples of slicing things up on the ISS talkpage for the PALZ robot, and some mathematical functions as well I think. There are more on his userpage here Penyulap ☏ 03:16, 10 Jun 2012 (UTC)

If it is implemented perhaps it could be activated? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 15:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why not, it seems like a great idea. there is code I can remember for a countdown, it is on the International space station talkpage. (wait a sec).. here it is Template:Countdown. It's often hard to find the thing you want, and hard to know if it exists, this one I have used before so I remember it. Penyulap ☏ 16:18, 10 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I've been playing with OpenStreetMap and made this. Is it worth making any more? Concerns are that we don't have a lot of detail and they may not be accurate.

Secretlondon (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to help out with the discussion on what the correct name for this article should be, feel free to join the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all.

I've nominated List of space stations for FL (discussion). As of right now, the nomination has stalled because of a lack of people commenting (the last comment was 21 days ago).

I'd like to request additional, experienced eyes at the discussion. I'm posting here because it's a space related list. Anyone commenting doesn't necessarily need experience in the featured list process.

Thanks in advance, ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot seem to locate a Wikipedia article for this particular satellite: Via Sat 1 Does one exist? -- perhaps under another name? Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, right here ViaSat-1. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 02:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much, Wingtip! I tried several searches, guessing it did not find it as I left a space between Via and Sat. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem, N2e. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 03:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How many of the major satellite buses do not have Wikipedia articles for the bus series? Does anyone know how to find out? What is the Wikiproject Spaceflight standard for such articles? (in general, do we want such articles to exist for all sat busses?)

One example from Hughes will illustrate: There is an article for the Hughes HS 333 satellite bus, of which only a relatively small number of satellites were ever built and launched. There appears to be no article for the HS 376 of which a much larger number of satellites were eventually built and launched (I searched "HS 376", "HS376", "HS-376", etc.). Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we are lacking for quite a few Soviet/Russian ones but I haven't scoped it out. Secretlondon (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated List of International Space Station spacewalks to go up on the main page and some concerns have been raised here. I would greatly appreciate any help you might provide in addressing these concerns, particularly those regarding getting the article back up-to-date and finding replacement sources for the broken links. Neelix (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks,

I created an article some time ago called Deep Space Habitat. Essentially, this is a proposed idea for NASA's currently under development architecture for longer duration space missions outside of LEO based on ISS architecture. For lack of any real expertise on my end, I've essentially created a glorified stub, and I'm not entirely certain the topic of the article is correctly defined. That is to say, is this part of a larger design concept that belongs in a larger, combined article, or is it worthy of dedicated article such as the current state? Anyhow, I figured I'd drop a note here to see if I could spark some interest from better informed editors. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hiberniantears. Designs such as these are created periodically by NASA and others. If you look at Template:Space stations, the 'Proposed' section, you'll see there are quite a few. I cannot say if the Deep Space Habitat is part of a larger design or not. It seems like it would be a precursor to the Nautilus-X. Some of these stations and vehicles have a lot of info on them and some don't. We could have an article that is essentially a list of proposed space stations if you don't think the DSH merits its own article. I'm of the opinion that it is best to leave the stub (it has more information than most stubs anyway) and wait for it to grow. It is notable enough as it is now, and more info is likely to show up at some point. I say create the talk page, make it part of WikiProject Spaceflight, and we can all help it grow as we can. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 22:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't even know about Nautilus-X, so I learned something already! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion over at Talk:Anik_(satellite)#How_to_categorize_an_article_that_is_really_about_three_different_things that seems to identify a matter about which other interested WikiProject Spaceflight editors may have an opinion, but which is only an example of a larger problem. That specific article is about a series of satellites with the same designator, but which are not all necessarily built on the same satellite bus. Should we have a category for a named series of Sats, or just leave in the broader Category:Satellites as the article is at present? (and if so, what would be the project "standard" for the name of that category?) The other Satellite subcategories don't seem to work, as no one category applies to the entire series (e.g., while many were at one time geostationary, many are no longer so). Would appreciate input from others. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to this project, but the idea seems of value. i have a similar proposal below.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We have an existing category, Category:Individual physical objects, which now includes individual vehicles. Category:Spacecraft mixes up series of craft, concept vehicles, and individual vehicles. Do we want to have a parallel category, such as Category:Individual spacecraft, which would probably be a bit of work to create?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The 'Programs' section of the article is a mix of programs and space agencies. I'd like to clean it up a little bit and could use some feedback from anyone willing to help. See the discussion there. Thanks! --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what to make of this recent edit of McDivitt's page? Is it possible this is actually McDivitt himself? The edit changes some of the information (without citation) and is full of typos. How should we handle it? JustinTime55 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced changes to a BLP? Revert, no question. I have him a COI welcome, but I'll leave the revert up to you. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jssteil (talk · contribs) is working with NASA to get some of their research papers uploaded onto Wikipedia. Unfortunately, thats pretty much exactly what has happened: the papers have been cut and pasted into Wikipedia without converting the contents from research paper to encyclopedia article.

The user and I have gotten off to a bad start when I tagged a bunch of these articles (and see: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Newer_editor_having_issues_with_TheRedPenOfDoom ) and the user has found a sort of friend in Penyulap (talk · contribs)

If there in anyone with the project who would be interested in stepping in as a coach or mentor, this could potentially be a valuable resource for Wikipedia. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Their research papers don't belong on Wikipedia itself- they can be uploaded to Wikisource though. Secretlondon (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikisourcing the documents has been mentioned, and I think they have been posted there, but I am not sure. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Landings on other planets has been proposed to be renamed -- 70.24.247.242 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Apollo_11_or_Apollo_XI.3F and the discussion linked to there. Taylor Strand (talk) 08:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Noticing that the Russian space program/me's articles used mixed WP:ENGVAR, I started a renaming discussion to standardise it - but it's turned into a bit of a debate about whether or not the American term should be used across all (at least non-British) articles, that has included the statement that using "programme" for the Soviet/Russian articles is biased(!) and has (indirectly) expanded to cover Chinese space program/me articles (via Hong Kong). So perhaps this needs to be defined clearly which is preferred where?

Discussions are here, here and here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is something the project should directly decide, this is more an issue with WP:ENGVAR itself. I think WP:RETAIN, as mentioned in those discussions, is pretty clear. This is a subject that can quite easily escalate into arguments and rather pointless edit warring rather than encyclopaedia building, indeed we've seen that with the ISS, and the principle behind WP:RETAIN seems an adequate compromise. Besides, there is a requirement for consistency within in article on Wikipedia, but not necessarily between them. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So having articles on the same country's space program/mes can be on both spellings and that's considered OK? That seems to me to be just something else for people to laugh at Wikipedia about. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a standard across different articles, as per ENGVAR. This isn't unique to this project! Secretlondon (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Essentially copying what I just posted on the Zond talk page; national ties are the only reason that spelling should be changed, and there are no strong national ties to any English speaking country. I also strongly oppose the position (advocated by a couple of North American editors on the Zond talk page) that all spaceflight has national ties to America; that's like saying "the USA is the largest English-speaking country, therefore the whole of Wikipedia should be en-US". That's simply not how WP:ENGVAR works. Just keep things as they are, and make sure the alternative spelling in each case has a redirect. --W. D. Graham 12:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the replies above. Coincidentally, I just renamed a few Indian spaceflight pages from program to programme. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 18#Space programs where I have proposed some of the categories for renaming, although I was not proposing to harmonise the spellings. – Fayenatic London 12:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have requested a move of Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms → Docking and berthing of spacecraft –

You are most welcome to chim in! Kindest regards, Tony Mach (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So... zh.wiki has a picture, zh:File:Shenzhou9-launch.jpg , under a FUR. And pt.wiki as well... pt:Ficheiro:Shenzhou-9.png ; Should we get that four our article? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would need to meet our fair use guidelines. The photo of the launch wouldn't qualify. The image of the patch might, but it might count as a logo and we'd need to decide whether it was integral to the image, which it probably isn't. Secretlondon (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would the photo of the launch not qualify? It was a one-time event. It's not like somebody can go over and take a free photograph... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

My reading of it is: the sourcing of the launch image is dodgy - it's a blog. Even if we find the original - the only thing I can see it fitting under is WP:NFCI 8:

"Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."

The image itself won't be talked about - and it is just a photo of a rocket leaving a launchpad, (thankfully) behaving as intended. Does this "significantly aid" understanding of the event? The event isn't notable for this aspect, it's notable for being the first manned rocket to dock with the space station. If we could get an image of that, then brilliant, although we already have a diagram. Have we looked for free alternatives - who else took photos of the launch? I also think what this article really needs is more words not more pictures - it only has 350 words currently, and one sentence on the actual launch. Secretlondon (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The launch itself was closed to the public, on a military reservation (with a PLAAF base), though it was aired live via CCTV, the national broadcaster of China. So, can we get a free shot of the launch? No, it was a restricted event, the only publicly shown imagery are from the Space Agency, Military, or Broadcast Network. Can we get imagery of the docking from a free source? Again, no, the only imagery is from the Space Agency itself, or various spy agencies monitoring the docking. Is the docking the only historic event? No, this mission also launched the first Chinese woman into space, so the launch of the rocket shows the launch. It is only the third time a separate space agency has launched its own female astronaut. In the context of China, it is also the first time a Chinese taikonaut has been launched twice; so also only the third time a separate space agency has launched its own astronauts on a second mission. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a new discussion thread at Template talk:Apollo program#Category: Apollo program. This navbox seems to have migrated away from its original purpose of encompasing all Apollo topics, to just a list of missions. An editor has noted the discrepency with Category:Apollo program and raises the issue. Please discuss there. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Penyulap has been blocked indefinitely following a discussion at ANI. I see no reason to keep this thread open --W. D. Graham 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

He is one of the more prolific editors but he's extremely biased and for the most part he has no idea about the subjects he contributes to. I don't mean to turn this into a witch hunt but what can be done about him?--Craigboy (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Trick him into a using a pod without his space helmet, I'll do the rest. PALZ9000 (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Advise him?Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 10:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've talked to multiple times but he doesn't really listen and then goes off on strange tangents that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.--Craigboy (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm also becoming increasingly tired of his disruptive editing. He keeps flogging a dead horse with the ISS dialect dispute, as soon as he thinks its been forgotten he just brings it back up again trying to wikilawyer to get his own way, and when the consensus invariably goes against him, he just claims it is invalid. It's got to the stage now that I can't have a discussion with him because he just goes off at a tangent claiming everything I say is invalid because I don't accept his position on this issue. It is at best disruptive editing, and at worst harassment. --W. D. Graham 14:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Morning folks, nice to be back. I can't agree more with this - ever since he waltzed in, making 'improvements' to the ISS article which led to its FA delisting and current sorry state, I've been appalled by his behaviour - take the section above regarding the new portal which arrived. He's marked it as resolved, but all that's happened is he's 'made contact' and written a load of gibberish in response. No discussion took place at all. Takes it upon himself to declare policy and make edits which should be via consensus, and it's extremely irritating & disruptive. SalopianJames (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

We need a slogan, people won't take us seriously without some catchy phrase. PALZ9000 (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, do you realise how inappropriate it is to use a bot account in this manner? --W. D. Graham 00:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

WDGraham, do you realise how inappropriate it is to use a WikiProject in this manner? Penyulap ☏ 00:58, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

OK, then: do you realise how against policy it is to use a bot account in that matter? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

oh noes, he is online, quick everyone look busy !! PALZ9000 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Bot accounts should not be used for contributions that do not fall within the scope of the bot's designated tasks". This is your final warning regarding the matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, it might actually do you some good to read these comments rather than dismissing them out of hand because they're in the wrong place, and if you do read them you might notice that I didn't put the discussion here, I only joined it. In any case, you should be glad we're discussing it here, and not elsewhere; here we might find a way to help you contribute constructively, if we took it to ANI, you'd probably just end up with a topic ban or another block. Your call. I think your main problem is that you can't stay serious and on-topic long enough to discuss anything with you. --W. D. Graham 01:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 It's OK now, everyone stay calm, I've unplugged his Arduino, please go back to what you were doing, oh yes, that's right discussing me... Penyulap ☏ 01:07, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Pen, nobody disputes that you're passionate and knowledgable, it's just that if you listened when people discussed you, and accept that the reason they often discuss you might be you, not them, there'd be a whole lot fewer discussions about you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Listened in regards to what Bushranger ? Penyulap ☏ 01:13, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

The concerns about your editing style and habits, as detailed above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And what would you suggest in relation to any specific issue ? prove your point ? well what issue ? choose one. Penyulap ☏ 01:20, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That's his other main problem, he never listens to anybody who he disagrees with. For example, he's been taking the ISS talk page around in circles for the last year with three or four proposals to change the article's dialect, just ignoring the opposition to his proposal and claiming he has consensus regardless of the previous outcomes; restarting the discussion whenever it dies down. On one occasion he put up an ((editprotected)) to try and push through part of his proposal (despite a page of objections below it), and then nearly got into a revert war with the admin who declined it. --W. D. Graham 01:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

cn, since when am I trying to change the var ? more importantly, where is the consensus for it to be change, or kept as it is ? Penyulap ☏ 01:31, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

QED --W. D. Graham 01:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess you don't want to diff anything then ? well I can diff a straw poll where WDGraham tied it up back to front, so that the status quo votes were hijacked in his own favor, to keep the eng var template against consensus,. interesting read that one, I can show you many editors who were quite upset about it too. yes, but you think there is consensus do you ? but you can't diff anything can you  ? Penyulap ☏ 01:41, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

And that's relevant to your own behavior how? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well Craigboy is upset because on the CSS article, he didn't like the picture I drew, he wanted to delete it and replace it with his own. I don't care when it's just 1 to 1, however since April, Academica Orientalis has stated support for the image which I drew, which is based on the Chinese Government's own website's picture. So with 2 to 1, I would either put both pics in, or just the one that has support from Academica Orientalis. Then Academica Orientalis had put it into an overview article of science and technology in China, and Craigboy swapped it for a very inappropriate pic there, which I thought didn't provide the feel that the editor was aiming for, and I supported the original pic. Which he didn't like, and kept changing back. (that pic has since gained wider support, but Craigboy still is unhappy apparently)

Then there is the ISS article, where two other editors besides myself thought that an in-depth discussion of the APAS docking system didn't belong in the China section, so that was 3 to 1 against, and he kept putting it in. The problem here isn't actually Craigboy, who I think is a fine editor for reasons you'll never know unless I told you. The problem is WDGraham continually ignoring all editors on the ISS talkpage who disagree with him, over and over again for is it four years now ? I don't know, but it's like, three times longer than I have been an editor that he and Ckatz have been suppressing other editors on the ISS talkpage. So if they are like "Oh penyulap isn't listening to me" it's because I can freaking count is what I can do. I can diff consensus and support because I do not ignore people. So it is the remarkably poor example being set by WDGraham in regards to 'if it's archived it doesn't exist' that is confusing other editors. However, even when there are editors who are objecting to his point of view, in the same discussion, and same section he still refuses to acknowledge them. (not me, other editors) Penyulap ☏ 02:14, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

So Bushranger, I'd like to know, as you seem happy to give advice, tell me how I could possibly be any more accommodating to these two ? -Pen

(I made Bushranger aware of my question on his talkpage, but he seems to not wish to answer) -Pen

"Well Craigboy is upset because on the CSS article" I'm upset over more then just that. "he wanted to delete it" I never nominated your image for deletion, although you did nominate one of my images for deletion and the reason you listed was "If there was an artist with a computer who could be bothered making space station images, then this image could be replaced". "Craigboy swapped it for a very inappropriate pic there" Penyulap please stop lying. The image I replaced was that of the Chinese space station. "then there is the ISS article, where two other editors besides myself thought that an in-depth discussion of the APAS docking system didn't belong in the China section, so that was 3 to 1 against, and he kept putting it in." False, you were replacing my text with with unsourced and controversial claims. The only reason why I was adding an "in-depth discussion of the APAS docking system" was because you kept on crying wolf about American bias when it was mentioned that the Chinese docking system is probably only compatible with the US portion of the ISS.--Craigboy (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes you are right and I am wrong, you didn't want to delete it. One point to Craigboy, I apologize. You wanted to remove all instances on English wikipedia of the image being used in article space (it's used on Chinese wikipedia as well I think, other places there is no article)

I did nominate the OPSEK CG for deletion as it in my opinion can be replaced with a free image, you are right.

3 to 1 would be in this section, where U5K0 is quite liking a particular version where it quickly says China uses the Russian designed APAS and the section moves on. He says his initial concerns with statements in the section are resolved, and suggests the detailed discussion might go into the docking section. That would be one, number two is Cs302b, who supports the docking discussion in the main article, but is quite doubtful over both it's inclusion in the China section, and the China section itself. In fact, there is more support I think for deleting the China section itself, it's margins are narrower, but afaik still balancing for it to be in there. But an in depth discussion within that section is quite unpopular. So, U5K0, Cs302b and I all want and support your discussion of the APAS docking system, we all want it, and we want it in the docking section. GIVE US YOUR WORK !!! gimme, gimme, gimme ! we want your work Craigboy.

So everyone wants your work at 3 to 1 and more, but at 3 to 1, we don't feel it belongs in the China section. If it were in the docking section where it belongs, then I wouldn't be 'crying wolf' as you call it, because you'd have the space required to describe it properly and explain everything, and please, when it is explained in depth you can use the word 'clone' and everything else you desire, because it can be properly qualified and expanded on. It's just where all the sources need to be compressed into a single half sentence that a fair summary of all sources, not just one, becomes so very important. Penyulap ☏ 11:03, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

"I did nominate the OPSEK CG for deletion as it in my opinion can be replaced with a free image, you are right." There is no free image in existence. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Policy.--Craigboy (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In the policy you point to, on line number one, it says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created," as I mentioned, it could be created. Look at the two of us, we are both artists who make images of space stations for articles, between the two of us, surely we could create an image. Penyulap ☏ 14:51, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Or for that matter, James is upset about the former FA status of the article he put so much effort into, understandable he feels that way, but if he actually thought for one bleeding second that it was 'ruined' then he has frick'in Rollback, so why doesn't he just roll it back ? If it was possible to find a better version, obviously that would be possible, but the current version is clearly as good as it is ever going to be until people stop moping about and get back to editing. It can't be rolled back because there is no possible way to find anything better than the article that has been built now, so how can we start working together better ? Advice ? Penyulap ☏ 02:29, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I edited the policy, so please take my clarification with a grain of salt, until it has gained a bit more support, or at least until it has been there for some time. Otherwise it is pretty easy to ask about it, or get involved in the discussion on that policy page, because we'll need to do a good job to either explain it to you, or explain it to me, or preferably explain it to everyone. Penyulap ☏ 15:35, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

What you need to do is to take a deep breath, not think - at all - about what other editors have or have not done, and ask yourself this. 'If I was an experienced editor looking at my work, what would I think? How would I react myself if I saw another editor doing what I do?'. If there actually aren't any problems, then the thing to do is not to snipe back; any accusations they levy will be sloughed off like water off a duck's back by the quality of your work when inspected. If there are any problems, then the next thing to do is 'how do I improve as an editor?', and to consider what others have to say about it. That's what I'd suggest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if I were an experienced editor looking at the wikiproject being used in a manner consistent with harassing an editor I might take slightly longer to work out who is the problem before weighing in with an opinion. I guess that is what I do at ANI, I take time to read up before I compute. I'd personally take time out of my ongoing editing to find out if the consensus is clear and apparent in that editors favor before suggesting that they are the one who doesn't listen. That way I'd not make the mistake of thinking that it's only three editors are unhappy with one, but rather it's multiple editors, across multiple articles, that are unhappy with two editors here. Who is not listening to who is a very simple question to answer correctly if you took 3 minutes to have a look at the talkpages concerned. Penyulap ☏ 02:55, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, stop accusing me of being at fault here. Find one post in this discussion which backs up your claim. Oh, there isn't one. In fact, that discussion demonstrates consensus to keep it as it is. So shut up, stop harassing me about it, and start doing something more constructive. --W. D. Graham 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You're to blame. You ignore other editors, you've ignored them for years, before I ever started editing wikipedia, you ignore them now, and with God as my witness you'll go on ignoring them forevermore, you ignore them when they say "This is a monument to the failure of the wiki system" and that is in the exact same discussion where you're ignoring them. An editor returns after having left the article just to quote Red Forman ? and you still don't see anything wrong with your behavior. That's year after year after year of not respecting other editors. Me, I'm an idiot, a damfool idiot, thank you James, I go on and on and on about yellow hats in the space station because we have an image and it's photographic evidence and I'd like to describe what is going on, but you don't see me shoving it into the article today, or for months, because I accept that it would take more to convince everyone that it can be documented than I'm willing to put in. I understand consensus. I respect other editors and I do not consider consensus to have changed if the page is archived, I go on respecting their opinions, even if they have left the project. Meh, but that's just me, I have probably forgotten more about consensus than some people will ever know.

James I am certain does not like me, but he has surprised me by putting emotion aside in favor of reason when he really didn't have to, and I respect that. He may think I ruined his favorite article, which to be honest is patently untrue, Brad says it barely got through into FA and he would have voted against it. I would hope that one day he'll stop feeling sorry the article was demoted and look towards improving it. I personally don't see a pressing need to give ownership editors sharper teeth to maul newbies with, so I don't care if it has the technical status or not, I only care that everyone can edit, and that the article has no gaping holes or serious problems. The article would be impossible to bring back to FA without a good portion of the material I inserted remaining. Sure, a lot needs to go, but what remains would be a substantial obstacle on the path to FA for my critics. They would have to face the fact that the article hasn't been 'ruined', and there is a lot of damn brilliant material in it. So the path back to FA continues on the precise timetable which I predicted at the FAR, nobody is willing to rewrite the future there as far as I can see. Penyulap ☏ 11:03, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You did add a Christmas section to the article and then there was that whole thing about the hat pictures.--Craigboy (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

yes I know, it's a bit sparse that Christmas article, but there is always room for improvement, go and delete it/edit it/fix it if it bothers you that much. As for the Hats, take a look at the article, there are NO yellow hats, I would LIKE more yellow hats but there is just not enough support for it, so of course, I don't put it back in. Simple. Penyulap ☏ 13:51, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making another personal attack, please answer my question. Is there a single post in the most recent discussion which supports your position? --W. D. Graham 11:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this, if you'd like me to give you beginner's lessons in understanding consensus, then you can start by not telling me to 'shut up', because if you would like someone's help, you shouldn't be telling them to shut up at the same time. (actually I remember someone putting it in the same actual sentence in real life, zomg, that was hilarious) Penyulap ☏ 14:03, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I know what consensus is, thank you, but actually that's quite an interesting point. Please describe, in your own words, what consensus is. --W. D. Graham 14:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that this seems to have tailed off a bit; but guys, please, could you all consider being the recipients of GrannyHugz from Granny Pesky, combined with nice cup of tea/probably the best beer in the world, cakes, muffins, crumpets [stop the wicked sniggering at the idea of "crumpet", guys! Oh, really! Men!] and so on. Good folks often have disagreements on stuff, and good folks can have bad days (it's called "being human"), and good folks can misunderstand each other and/or misremember things. Little spats like this are all part of normal human interactions (what animal behaviourists call "species-normal"), but it's important always not to let ourselves get too entrenched in them, to the point where we lose sight of the bigger picture and start focussing on all the bad bits. So, shake hands all around, or group hug, or whatever works for you. Hugz to all from Granny Pesky. Pesky (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been mostly on Wikibreak recently, and just stumbled into this discussion today; perhaps I'm too late to add much. However, I will say that the summary of the situation by the first several commenters on this topic (Craigboy, PALZ9000, W. D. Graham, Salopian James, and Bushranger), and their analysis of the problem, matches my own observations on a number of space related articles over a number of months. Should the need arise, feel free to invite me to comment more specifically should that ever become necessary. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably worth having a look at his talk page, some interesting discussions going on there. He's also trying to open the ISS dispute again (including his attempts here and on my user talk page, I think that's the sixth time in the space of a year that he has started exactly the same discussion) - this time by consulting an administrator with his usual biased summary, without notifying anybody else involved in the discussion. He also continues to harass me by making irrelevant claims about my actions in discussions which don't even concern me; I suspect he is just trying to provoke a dispute. I am sure he means well - he has by his own admission a mental health issue which can cause "altered perception when making editorial judgements, determining consensus, or reading Wikipedia discussions addressed to them", and he has made some very useful and valuable contributions so I don't want to lose him from the project - but I believe he is out of control, and we should seriously consider taking this discussion to the next level, either WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI. Any thoughts? --W. D. Graham 20:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

well I thought you didn't want me getting uninvolved assistance with the matter, would it be alright to return the uninvolved help template to the page ? Penyulap ☏ 22:41, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

What I am opposed to is wasting any more editor time and resources on a discussion which has achieved nothing but creating a tonne of ill-feeling within this project. Uninvolved help would change nothing, no one editor has the power to overrule the rest of the community. In the other discussion, you said that you wanted to address the feelings of all editors on the talk page. The majority are just weary of the constant discussion of this issue, and just want it to end. I believe the comment about it being a "monument to the failure of the wiki process" was referring to the endless discussion rather than the content issue itself. If you truly want to address the concerns of all editors involved, please listen to those who just want this discussion to die with the little dignity that it still has. --W. D. Graham 23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it time for santions?Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 08:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have seen useful contributions to the project by Penyulap; but too often have seen vast amounts of editor time wasted by unconstructive edit battles, point-of-view endless discussion, etc. I don't have the time to put the summary of the situation together, but I would certainly support the discussion at WP:RFC/U that would follow if someone else chooses to do that. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap is one of the best editors we have in the project when it comes to his abilities and knowledge regarding a great many things both of spaceflight and WP itself. I've had little interaction with him, but from what I've been able to read in talk pages, something is out of place. It may be what WDGraham suggests (which I was not aware of), that he has a mental issue, which I have no problem with, but whatever it is, it has become very disruptive. Making sense of his comments on talk pages is somewhat difficult; is he trying for humor? sarcasm? something else? These things are rather difficult to comprehend through text. Maybe we just need to ask him to explain himself and his intentions better, but it would seem some have already tried that. At one point I thought maybe he was not fully proficient in English due to some very incoherent comments, which again is something I have no problem with, and he had a hard time explaining himself. Regardless, the amount of time and manpower this project and its editors are spending dealing with him is too much. We should be editing and improving the encyclopedia, not dealing with disruptive editors. While I have no conflicts with with him, I would support taking this to WP:RFC/U. I do not want him banned from the project, but something needs to be done to improve the situation. I would only be OK with taking this to WP:ANI after we tried WP:RFC/U. At some point we may have to decide if the pro's outweigh the con's of having him in the project. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wingtipvortex how about this, you pick any one issue with any one of these editors and investigate it. I'd be happy with a second opinion. Penyulap ☏ 20:44, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, maybe this is what we mean. Could you explain yourself a little better? (And I say this very kindly) I really would like you to be more specific. You want me to choose an issue I personally have with one of these other editors? Or that we (all the editors here) choose an issue we have with you? Or something else? What kind of a second opinion are you looking for? And what do you mean when you say you'd be happy with it? --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 23:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is this, you pick any one editor and find out exactly what it is they are bitching and whining pointlessly complaining about and see if they are not bitching and whining pointlessly complaining, see if they have any actual point, or if they simply do not like consensus going against them. Pick an issue, any issue, make yourself the judge and then tell us who is correct and who is incorrect. Penyulap ☏ 23:24, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will do that. Give me some time, these issues seem to go way back and I'll have a lot of reading to do. --Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You're not helping yourself with comments like that. Please calm down and try to be more civil. --W. D. Graham 23:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to help me in any way, I stand on the solid ground of policy. You are the one I am trying to help. You seem upset whenever I mention the poll which you tied up back to front, stealing all the status quo votes. You seem to think I should also sweep it under the carpet along with the editors who, even today, are still upset over something that you did 3 years ago and STILL will not admit was wrong. Penyulap ☏ 23:59, 13 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because it wasn't? You are seeing what you want to see and ignoring everything that doesn't fit because you can't accept that you are wrong. And I don't get "upset whenever [you] mention" it, I just can't be bothered to waste any more of my life arguing with a brick wall. --W. D. Graham 00:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Maybe because it wasn't? " hold on, are you changing your position further now, to say tying up the poll back to front was defensible ? Penyulap ☏ 02:25, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is that you can't accept facts that don't fit with your version of events. The RfC was not "back to front", the article was started in British English, and was never fully in American. Now if you can find the consensus to change it to American before the previous RfC, then I would be willing to discuss this, but right now all I can see is a Tendentious editor who is blind to anything that doesn't help his case. --W. D. Graham 07:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you mean not back to front ? here is the start of it, so we can see...

New section titled "British English versus American English for this Article" There are those of you out there that have changed this article's English format which originally was written in American English to British English without soliciting the opinions of the Wikipedia community at large. Changing this article from American English to British English because other space flight articles are written that way is not a reason. Secondly, some think that because the space station is "international" it should be written in British English. Sorry, folks that's not a reason either. The ISS started life as an American program and the US has been the largest contributor of funding for this program. Use of American English versus British English in an article such as this should respect the country that has had the most profound impact upon it. Special Contributions 70.170.125.247 00:02, 11 March 2009

Two minutes after they posted that, you claim that it was chosen by consensus, like this "The issue was discussed, and the current format was chosen by consensus."

and here again, you refer to a conversion following discussion "And there was discussion before the conversion occurred. There were no objections at the time."

So you say there was a conversion, or are you saying you never said that there was a conversion ? Penyulap ☏ 08:35, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

It was so long ago that I can't remember exactly what I meant by that, maybe I meant that it was converted from mixed to standardised, or maybe I just made a mistake. In any case, ad hominem tu quoque arguments aside, you have proven my point. If you actually took the time to look at the page history then it would very quickly become clear that your position is very silly since the answer is quite obvious. Here is a revision a couple of weeks before it was standardised; it is not written in American English, there is no standardisation. But you're just going to ignore that so you can go on waging your little war against everyone who disagrees with you. I mean here is the article written entirely in British English in 2001. Hypothetically, if the article were, as you claim, converted into American English, why do you feel that change would be appropriate, and the change back wouldn't be? This is not the first time I have asked you this, but you have never replied. I'm assuming that's because you know your position is indefensible and hypocritical, and you're hoping others won't notice? --W. D. Graham 15:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Penyulap ☏ 22:00, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Please respond to my points rather than resorting to personal attacks and ad hominem arguments. I think that is half of the problem here. --W. D. Graham 22:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

this is not a personal attack, it is a question, which I shall repeat verbatim.

" (Personal attack removed) " Penyulap ☏ 23:17, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

You've tried again to delete my question, which I don't particularly like, considering you have brought up the subject first, in this very conversation I'm not pointing fingers, I'm just asking do you understand what that is. Penyulap ☏ 00:11, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

other discussion

He has too much humor, which is not a problem, but uses it on humour-barred pages(PALZ9000 also does) which is the problem. Yes and i just asked if it was wise to put santions on him. If he disobeyes the santions, he'd have to face a block for 90 days.Mir Almaat Ali Almaat ☏ From Trivandrum, Kerala, India(UTC+5:30) 11:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with his humour as long as it doesn't affect the encyclopaedic tone of articles (as it did with the hats issue), or prevent us discussing serious issues with him. As for sanctions, and I hope they aren't needed, it would be for an administrator to decide, not us. --W. D. Graham 11:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

'Investigation'

As requested of me by Penyulap, here is my investigation.

I won't focus on a specific editor as I have no desire to create further conflict rather, I will focus on the International Space Station article, which appears to be the most debated article and, more specifically, on the issue of whether or not the article should be in British or American English, which seems to be where the biggest and most heated problems are.

The debates have been going on for a lengthy amount of time, longer than I have been editing Wikipedia. Given that I have never edited the ISS article, I believe I qualify as a neutral third party when it comes to this dispute.

The last discussion had regarding the correct spelling format for the article focused on Penyulap's disagreement with the British English template, which according to him implied a consensus that was never reached. Users Navy Blue 84, WD Graham and Ckatz participated in the discussion, all claiming said consensus had already been attained.

The earliest talk page discussion regarding the type of English occurred in 2009, where a straw poll was held to decide if the article, which at the time was written in British English, should be changed to American English. The result was no consensus, and no changes were made as per WP:ENGVAR.

Looking through the archived discussions, there are no indications of when a consensus for the British English standard was established. All my research indicates the article was at one point standardized from a mix of Englishes into British, and while some people asked why it was in British, no consensus was ever reached for changing it.

Often reviving the discussion was Penyulap, who many times requested for officially establishing consensus for a language variant. The archives show most times he was pointed towards prior discussions regarding the subject and little action took place.

Penyulap has brought up the issue of a language consensus repeatedly. This has not been taken kindly by several editors, most notably WD Graham. It is likely WD's aggravation is also due to other issues with Penyulap.

Penyulap asked me to see if other editors “have any actual point, or if they simply do not like consensus going against them.” As far as I can tell, no consensus was ever reached against them. While I have no indication of WD having a conflict of interest when it comes to preventing the article from using American English, his user page does contain a user box with the following text: “This user does not understand American English and doesn't bloody well want to.” While this is likely to be sarcasm and a little tongue-in-cheek humor, I'd like him to clarify that the fact he appears to not like American English is not the reason he has so greatly opposed Penyulap's requests.

In summary

In the original discussion I'm focusing on, which sparked a lot of heated debate, Penyulap asked to remove the British English template from the talk page. His concern was that consensus had not been reached to have it present and the views of many other editors were being ignored.

Navy Blue claimed Penyulap was the only user who complained about the templates being there. As far as this investigation has been able to determine, that statement was correct. Navy Blue, WD and Ckatz claimed there was a consensus reached to put those templates there. As far as my investigation has determined, that is incorrect.

The only consensus my investigation has found was to not change an article that somehow managed to become British English into American English. No other consensus regarding the matter were found in the archived discussions.

Penyulap's claims that there are other editors' views being ignored are partially true. While there have been editors who have expressed a desire to have the article converted into American English, none have complained about the British English templates.

Penyulap's attempts at repeatedly bringing up the issue have been treated as forum shopping, a consensus-building pitfall. An ignored policy in the discussion was that consensus can change, most especially when there wasn't one.

In this discussion, Penyulap's original request was a valid one. The discussion itself however, strayed from civility by all parties involved and invoked consensus and WP policies that did not exist.

This is a case in which multiple editors did not provide sources to back up their statements, many of which statements were false. While it is not the original reason for this page's discussion started by Craigboy and there may be many other grievances against User:Penyulap, in the instance investigated by me, Penyulap was not the only problem.

I would recommend that in future discussions, we all remember to assume good faith and stay cool. Lets turn a new page in the project and look ahead instead of dwelling on our past disagreements.

Cheers folks! Wingtipvorte^X (talk) ∅ 18:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say I am outstandingly impressed by the amount of reading you have done. Thank you for giving an informed opinion. Penyulap ☏ 21:46, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

While I think this does glance over a few points, on the whole I think it shows all sides need to back off. I think it is clear that the constant repetition of discussion on this issue is the cause of any incivility which may have occurred in the discussion. While it is true that consensus can change, and for that reason the original discussion had merit, to quote WP:CCC "if a subject has been discussed recently, it can be disruptive to bring it up again", and I believe that is the real issue here. We don't object to or want to stop discussion, we just don't want that discussion to be constant and unending.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need to "turn a new page in the project and look ahead", and I would like to propose a significant cooling-off period from all sides before this issue is discussed again in any form, as I do not believe there is any way that further discussion could be kept civil at this time. --W. D. Graham 22:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

While I too wish to turn a new page in the project and look ahead, and I can't agree more with that, I do not agree that this should be done by ignoring other editors and their valid opinions. Ignoring other editors is how this mess began, and ignoring their opinions for 3 years has not fixed the problem, so I do not believe that ignoring their opinions is the best approach to dealing with the problem. In fact, I'd say that approach has been tried for three years and for three years it has failed, so I suggest it is time to try some other approach to the problem. Penyulap ☏ 01:21, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

My own take at this issue

Hi all. I think I know what is going on here.

Please read my response : it is very important in resolving the issue.

This article may also be of use here. I know what I am talking about, because I personally have very similar issues (although not as serious) with communication and interaction with other people, so I am offering an alternative perspective on this issue.

Hope this helps. :)

Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This essay may be of more use in this kind of instance than that article :o) I think it's very important for neurotypical editors not to fall into the trap of thinking of such things as being "mental health issues" or "disabilities" or other such names. Do, please, read the essay. And don't, please, ever seek to marginalise, disempower, or dismiss someone on the grounds of what someone else might see as as "mental health issue". Autism-spectrum disorders are no more a "mental health issue" than colour-blindness is. I've done a heap (OK, several heaps) of reading-up here, and I'm afraid that my over-arching impression is one of joint ownership :o( And ganging-up with some really misleading phrases ("consensus has been reached", for example) against a dissenting voice. The major differences between A-spectrum and neurotypical processing functions are on a parallel with the major differences between two identically-powered Intel chip computers, one of which is running Windoze and the other running Mac OS. One of the best and biggest uses we, as a community, can make of our A-spectrum editors is their ability to perceive and store vast amounts of detail. Sometimes the details behind disagreements can become fuddled, glossed-over, or simply forgotten. The A-spectrum editor is unlikely to do any of these things. They are usually simply better at data-storage and fast-access than neurotypicals are. So, when it comes to a case of details, inconsistencies in other people's approaches and statements with respect to those factual details, the balance of probabilities is that the A-spectrum editor is likely to have a better grip on the entire situation than the neurotypicals. Summing up: A-spectrum people can find it harder to get on well with other people than neurotypicals do, but when it comes to factual accuracy they (we!) are generally far, far better. And, sometimes, that immense degree of factual accuracy, data-storage, data-processing and fast recall that we have makes it very hard for us to understand why neurotypicals don;t have the same thing. So, when they're misremembering stuff, because it's so incredibly hard for us to believe that someone else's data-processing and storage abilities are just not in the same league as ours are, it seems that the others are being deliberately disingenuous, or actively distorting history, or (worst!) just plain lying about what happened. You'd all be well-advised to read up on Savant syndrome, too. Surprisingly common in High functioning autism. Pesky (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you seem to be inferring that he may be a Savant. If someone is severely autistic enough it can have an affect on their ability to contribute. Penyulap himself has stated he is suffering from "mental health issues" but he may have only been joking even though he has been reminded that humor doesn't always carry over well onto wikipedia. "Summing up: A-spectrum people can find it harder to get on well with other people than neurotypicals do, but when it comes to factual accuracy they (we!) are generally far, far better." My biggest issue with Penyulap is that he actual has a very hard time interpreting what is factual information and what is not.--Craigboy (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Some examples would assist here, pick anything. Penyulap ☏ 08:21, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That does explain a lot to me, it is a plausible explanation for about 95% of what seems to go on. I must admit it does frustrate me incredibly that things are written in black and white and regardless of 'diffing them to death' people still don't accept what has been written down. In front of them. In black and white. Maybe it is just me. But as for me being a lone voice, it simply is not so, I did not invent the phrase 'Monument to the failure of the wiki process' and the continual efforts to twist such simple phrases when an explanation of the authors position is also given is quite frustrating. Also, when someone turns up and says 'you two jackasses are still here at it after two years' or whatever it was he said, and it's like supposedly possible to twist it around onto me, when I wasn't even here two years ago, it's like, well, I'm looking for other logical explanations beyond poor memory for some of this. Especially when the speakers who 'cannot be seen' are in the same conversation.

But otherwise, I think that does have a resounding truth to it, that it can all be held processed and indexed at once. That does explain a lot. I was knocked over and astonished by Wingtipvortex's grip on the situation he read and comprehended a huge amount I can tell. (I didn't mention the parts that were missed, because Wingtipvortex's insight and efforts to understand the situation have been the best so far. I do expect however that Pesky has come to the correct conclusion about the situation as well, although maybe she cheated by reading my mind. She's been known to do that. also Ched may grip it if he gets off his butt, but I've yet to see as much)

The solution to the whole mess is probably going to shock a few people, because the logical course for me in the end is to 'vote' British or abstain, despite the ongoing unfounded accusations by WD that I want the article American, that's not it at all. I don't care for the variant. I care for the solution to the monument and the jackass emotions. Sometimes a benevolent government which takes office by coup does not please the people as much as a democratically elected tyranny. It's how you reach the decision that matters, not what the decision is. There is no consensus on the ISS talkpage, and there is a template which claims otherwise. It's an offence to many editors. Penyulap ☏ 09:26, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I read the articles you link to, one of them is resoundingly significant to me, this part "been suggested that savants operate by directly accessing low-level, less-processed information that exists in all human brains but is normally not available to conscious awareness" sums me up in a BIG way. I mean BIG. I do have access to a lot of things that people aren't really meant to, as well as the common stuff like manipulating blood pressure and pulse, but it's more one way the other way, to be aware rather than to manipulate. Treffert says interesting things as well. It's interesting what wikipedia has, I'm often taken aback by how many ways the diversity of subject matter applies to the diversity of real life, the scope of crossover, like a pervasiveness of points without pattern. I want to study this some more, and maybe try to find a way to test further. The professionals who did test me long ago never had the right tests on hand at the time to see how far offscale I was going. It would be interesting to find out. Penyulap ☏ 11:07, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

"Normal people" (neurotypicals) just cannot get a grip on how auties do data-processing. It's way beyond their comprehension. Like we autie-spectrum people find it incredibly hard to get a grip on how they just can't. It can 'really feel as though they're just being dishonest ... when all they're being is bog-standard neurotypical. We have to learn patience and tolerance for their dysfunctionality (compared to us) in that area, in just the same way that they need to learn patience and tolerance for our dysfunctionality (compared to them) in other areas. It's a matter of give and take, and each type of person respecting the other for what they have got, and not dissing or mistrusting them for what they haven't got. That's all there is too it. Give and take. Low-level access? yup, fer sure. We have an incredible processor, but a f**king lousy user-interface! Pesky (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey everyone! I haven't been around Wikipedia much lately, so I thought I'd drop by this WikiProject to see what was happening.. and I see this talk page is 90% full of a discussion around Penyulap which has devolved into a debate about the english variant used on the ISS page.. just like the good old days!!! hahahaha! :-) Ahh... but seriously though, the English variant discussion is a big waste of time.. as Wingtipvortex states (after kindly investigating the matter at length) "The only consensus my investigation has found was to not change an article that somehow managed to become British English into American English." I think that sentence sums it all up.. there may not have been consensus in the first place, but now there's consensus not to change it.

Also, I'll comment on Penyulap's behaviour more generally, since that is what started this thread. His personality and behaviour clearly clashes with essentially everybody in this project, and I also am getting a fairly strong vibe that many people want him to leave (I assume Penyulap is a "him", but I'm not sure). Indeed, I think there aren't many things that annoy editors more than somebody else "forcing" you to spend time on things you don't want to spend time doing (e.g. taking part in needlessly long discussions). On the other hand 1) Nobody's forcing you to do anything, and 2) Wikipedia is ultimately a collaborative project. A necessary part of such a project is working with other people, including people you don't necessarily like. In the long run, Wikipedia will improve no matter what any one editor does.

Anyway, I hope everyone (including Pen!) is doing well. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

well these days I am a lot harder to wind up. Penyulap ☏ 11:36, 15 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Moving on

Well folks, I think we've learned a lot here. My special thanks to Pesky and Galactic Penguin SST for some excellent insights. We need to accommodate all editors, and we all need to use each other for the tasks we each do best.

As I said earlier, we need to turn a new page and move on. Blank our 'relationships' with each other and start anew. This will be more difficult for some of us. If you've offended someone, please apologize.

We've got a strong case of not assuming good faith, and that needs to change, that needs to be the first thing to change. If we need to create project-specific policy, then lets do it. As Mlm42 said, WP will improve no matter what any one editor does, but lets not be the ones that slow that improvement.

Personally, I'm done discussing the past here. I'll be more than happy to help move forward, but please do not ask me to keep discussing past mistakes. I've got enough RL stress as it is. I am taking a semi-wikibreak of undetermined length from this project.

Cheers!

--Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 00:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

..and on and on and on..

Wingtipvortex has stated "I'll go my way, you go on yours" in a long discussion on my talkpage. I've accepted an apology, and I've accepted a Barnstar, and I look forward to MlM42 having a single vote in future polls, the same as we all have. I look forward to a resolution that will satisfy all the editors on the ISS talkpage including Jason and Ohms Law and I think we have moved a step closer to that resolution. Penyulap ☏ 20:31, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aftermath

Penyulap has been blocked indefinitely, and is unlikely to be allowed to return until he can demonstrate an improved ability to work with others. It's unfortunate that it came to this, but once he started making personal attacks it was only going to end one way. I hope that he is able to come back one day and go back to editing constructively, and either way I hope we can now put all of this behind us.

That said, there are a few decisions that it might be worth revisiting, as I think there were a few times in the past year where he took actions against the wishes of the rest of the project, or where he was allowed to act unilaterally because people didn't want a dispute with him. For example I did not nominate his Christmas on the International Space Station article for deletion at the time, as I was already sick of arguing with him in the dialect dispute - I PRODded that article this morning. The issues I have noticed that I think we should consider reviewing are:

• The change of project logo
• The "decision" not to merge Portal:Human Health and Performance in Space into Portal:Spaceflight
• The creation of 11 redundant userboxes for the project

It would also be nice to try and get the ISS article back to FA status. --W. D. Graham 09:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be helpful to archive the endless debates, not for the sake of forgetting all of this, but to make all these issues inviting for new comers to join and discuss. I would suggest all issues be brought up in their appropriate talk page; as far as getting ISS back to FA, I think this was the article when it was promoted to FA (though someone should double check). If we revert to that version and update what needs to be updated we could have it up in no time really. It can be expanded later. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 19:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thrilled to see that this has happened, and interested to note how the talk page has flourished since it has become possibe to have a constructive debate on here... Agree with WDGraham, those will indeed need dealing with, and I'll try to do some work once I finally have my own computer again... :-S SalopianJames (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)