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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I have boldly created the Astra (spaceflight company) article. Feel free to contribute on this article. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Note: I have pulled a requested move to rename the article to Astra, Inc. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Discuss at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter (2nd nomination). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
The articles for individual NASA Astronaut Groups seem to be all using a different format when presenting the data, i.e. groups from 1 to 5 use a table with pictures of individual astronauts with their names, dates of flights, mission highlights, etc. The articles from group 6 onward use some variation of the text based format "Mission, Spacecraft — Date — Function — Mission highlights", but each article is a bit different. I understand the difference in format between groups until g5 and post g5, since this is when the shuttle started flying and the latter format is more useful, so for groups 6 and latter I suggest using a common format, the one found in the group 6 article. What do you guys think? Galopujacyjez (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Discuss at Talk:Blue_Origin_landing_platform_ship#Requested_move_8_March_2020. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I have created a sidebar about private spaceflight (((Private spaceflight))) to navigate among the articles related to private spaceflight. Feel free to contribute on the template. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, WikiProject Spaceflight! Just wanted to let you guys know that I've made two different merge proposals today; the first one to merge Mars Surveyor 2001 Lander into Mars Surveyor 2001 (Discussion), and the second one to merge an assortment of Mars Exploration Program-related articles into Mars Exploration Program (Discussion). Feel free to express your opinions on these proposals at the discussions linked! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 22:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
You're guys think that the site Apollo in Real Time is a good source for the Apollo 11, 13 and 17 articles? This site/project is also notable enough for an article? Erick Soares3 (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Megan, a member of ULA's communications team. I've taken over responsibilities as the company's Wikipedia representative, following User:ULA christa. I have two outstanding requests which have received some feedback but no movement. This request seeks to update the Activities section with mention of the Spaceflight Processing Operations Center (SPOC), and this request seeks to create the navigation template Template:United Launch Alliance from User:ULA Megan/Navigation template. I know Christa has reached out to WikiProject Spaceflight for feedback and assistance before, so I thought I'd try here again. I know there's a lot happening in the world right now, but are any editors willing to help with these requests? ULA Megan (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mobile_launcher_platform#Request_to_convert_articles_into_redirects. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 14:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Does anyone have Dubbs, Chris and Burgess, Colin. Animals In Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle, 2007.? It could be used for the FA Laika, either if whoever has the book is interested, or otherwise if they can scan (or take photos) of certain pages for me.
Semi side note, I have been planning to make a library page for myself on what books I own; would a page like that hosted in this project which combines all of our book collections be helpful to others? Kees08 (Talk) 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Solid-propellant_rocket#Merger_proposal. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 18:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Each of these articles: List of Ariane launches, List of Atlas launches, List of Thor and Delta launches, List of R-7 launches, and List of Proton launches are split by decade. However there seems to be an inconsistency in their article titles.
For the articles split under: List of Ariane launches, List of Atlas launches, and List of R-7 launches in the year range, the end year is given in full. i.e:
However for List of Thor and Delta launches and List of Proton launches, the year range has two-digit ending years. i.e.
The cited reason for not having the full ending years listed on the Thor/Delta and Proton pages was MOS:YEAR (see move edit history and see move edit history, both in 2013). The editors who moved those pages may be referring to MOS:DATERANGE in particular which originally favored the two digit method. However, in 2016 this this RFC changed the policy to be in favor of having the full ending year.
Therefore, would it make sense to move pages having the two-digit ending years to having the full ending years? (also citing WP:CONSISTENT - although that could work either way, hence why I brought it up here, and a strong local consensus could be in favor of having two-digit ending years). There might be other launch list articles that are split by decade but I didn't find any. OkayKenji (talk page) 03:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Think Template:Infobox spaceflight is probably the wrong choice for NOAAS Okeanos Explorer Gulf of Mexico 2018 Expedition and NOAAS Okeanos Explorer Gulf of Mexico 2017 Expedition. Anyone know what it should be? Kees08 (Talk) 06:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Articles which may be of interest to members of this project—Inmarsat-4 F1, Inmarsat-4 F3, and Inmarsat-4A F4—have been proposed for merging with I-4 satellite. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Kees08 (Talk) 17:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Orbit#Merger_proposal_7_April_2020. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 12:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
The Planetary Science Institute has recently released detailed costs for all NASA planetary science missions (all numbers are in millions of US dollars). There are headline totals for each mission, and comparisons by year, celestial object and funding stream. Detailed annual budgets for each mission are given, before and after inflation adjustment. This could be a valuable source for dozens of articles. Modest Genius talk 11:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus — Wug·a·po·des 22:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
– According to the article itself, "Ptichka" is also called "Buria". Therefore, rename this and other articles à la OK-GLI. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ptichka#Requested move 11 April 2020. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 16:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Frontier Radio is a draft that has been bouncing around for a couple of years now with very nominal improvements. The subject doesn't seem to have much independent coverage, but does seem to be an intergal component in a few space probes. Requesting comment from this group at the MfD that has now been put up for it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frontier Radio. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
An article that the project has been involved with ( Reusable launch system ) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article ( Reusable spacecraft ). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Talk:Reusable launch system#Splitting proposal 12 April 2020. Thank you. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Buran (spacecraft)#Request for comment 13 April 2020. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 08:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
While reading the article Shenzhou program I noticed after expanding it, that at the bottom of Template:Shenzhou program it says the previous mission is "Shenzhou 9" and next mission "Shenzhou 10" However Shenzhou 11 has already flown in space (in 2016). When I viewed the template to see if I could fix that, the intricate features of wiki-template syntax stumbled me, and are above my editing capabilities. So instead of screwing around with it, I thought it best to leave the info here. --Dutchy45 (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
References mentioned in the template have been added to the article. I nominate for removal of the template. If there are no objections, we can remove it after the talk. Any other suggestions to improve the article is greatly appreciated. Thanks!-Crazydaemon1 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
An article that this project has been involved with (Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rocket#Requested merge 23 April 2020. Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 17:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Megan with ULA here again. I'm disappointed to see some of the recent changes to the United Launch Alliance article, which reintroduce a "Controversy" heading and unfair text the community removed last summer. I've submitted a request here to remove the header, per Wikipedia:Criticism. So far no editors have replied to the request. Editors here have been very helpful in the past, so I'm hoping members of WikiProject Spaceflight might be willing to undo recent changes or merging content into the History section appropriately? Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: I see consensus to move all of the pages. Doing... (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
– With the official renaming of CCAFS to CCSFS (confirmation is in body text of linked article), I'd like to once again propose to group all Cape Canaveral launchpad articles by geographic location. Many of these launch sites have been inactive since the 60s, so renaming them to "Cape Canaveral Space Force Station Launch Complex #" would be incorrect, as they never had that name during active use, and renaming only the pages of active launch sites would violate Wikipedia guidelines on title consistency. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I took this photo about 12 years ago at the American Space Museum in Titusville. To me it looks like the hatch from a Mercury spacecraft. Is it from Mercury-Atlas 1? (I don't remember.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed a bunch of low grade/stub articles all trying to cover the subject of giant-scale speculative space structures, from space elevators to Dyson spheres and larger. For example: Megascale engineering, Macro-engineering, Astronomical engineering, Planetary engineering, Stellar engineering, etc. The only article that is well-written is Megastructures (and the tangential subject Exploratory engineering), so I suggest redirecting all the others either to Megastructures or to a suitable sub-section within that article. (Keeping an eye out for anything unique in the stubs which should be kept and moved to Megastructures.)
Secondly, if anyone has spare time, a snipe-hunt for all the articles that link to the above list and, a) relink them to Megastructures or an appropriate sub-section, and b) try to create a more consistent nomenclature in those articles to reflect the language in Megastructures.
-- PaulxSA (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello! Megan with ULA here again. Recently the United Launch Alliance article was expanded to include information about the company's launches during the 2000s, based on this request, which was added mostly as proposed by User:Seddon. I posted a similar request for ULA's 2010-2015 launches roughly two weeks ago, but so far no editors have responded. I see User:Seddon has not edited since May 20, so I am wondering if any other WikiProject Spaceflight members might be willing to review and update the article appropriately. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:JAXA#American vs. British English. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion on whether the page, USCV-4 should be deleted. Also a dissuasion on if USCV-1 should be moved to SpaceX Crew-1. OkayKenji (talk page) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
– Proposing to rename the "Vandenberg Air Force Base foo #" facility articles to "Vandenberg foo #". Many of these facilities have been inactive as of 2020, so renaming them to "Vandenberg Space Force Station foo #" after the COVID-19 pandemic would be incorrect, as they never had that name during active use, and renaming only the pages of active facilities would violate Wikipedia guidelines on title consistency. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Planetary flyby#Merger proposal. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox space shuttle#Purpose of the infobox. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey there! I've started a discussion over at Wikimedia Commons in an attempt to form some sort of agreement on how the names of categories for individual spacecraft should be formatted, as the status quo is inconsistent and messy. Be sure to come along and share your opinion on the matter! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion to move Template:SpaceX rocket launches → Template:SpaceX missions and payloads. OkayKenji (talk page) 01:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to comment at Talk:Dragon 2#Requested move 16 June 2020. — JFG talk 07:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Canadarm#British vs. American vs. Canadian English. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Blue Origin landing platform ship that would benefit from your opinion. Please come and help! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 23:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Spaceflight! I put up an edit request on the Talk:VERITAS_(spacecraft) page. Wondering if anyone here could take a look at my suggestions and help implement them or provide feedback on what I can do to make the edits more acceptable. Thanks! Morgensteorra (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:NASA#Problems with the US space program. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Boca Chica Village, Texas#Requested move 1 July 2020. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantis docked to MIR - GPN-2000-001315.jpg. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
An RfC this WikiProject may be interested in has been started. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of crewed lunar lander designs#Requested move 10 July 2020. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Starship 2019.png. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a direct quote from the viking 1 article, section 1.1 orbiter: "On August 7, 1980, Viking 1 Orbiter was running low on attitude control gas and its orbit was raised from 357 × 33943 km to 320 × 56000 km to prevent impact with Mars and possible contamination until the year 2019." Now, if these numbers are correct, obviously the apoapsis was raised but the periapsis was lowered. And since periapsis is what matters when considering aerobraking and impact, it seems to me the manouvre speeded up that time estimate, instead of "prevent"ing it! I feel my knowledge about these things falls just short of making an edit here myself. Maybe somebody involved with this portal can do that, or reply here with some details so that I can? Dutchy45 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
should we make a discord for this porject for better co ordination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceman1234 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion of a requested move of the page Secondary payload to Rideshare (spaceflight). OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 22:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 28 § SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, WikiProject Spaceflight members! I posted an edit request back on June 21, 2020 on Talk:VERITAS_(spacecraft). I've had one editor respond so far but most of the request has not been implemented since it looks like the editor needs some help going through all my suggested changes. Would any of you fine folks be able to come over to VERITAS_(spacecraft) to help out? Thanks! Morgensteorra (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Pages moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
– More appropriate and unambiguous title, since the letter B in "B####" means "Booster" and expanding the current article title results "Falcon 9 booster Booster ####"! What's the point? Besides, the proposed title is WP:CONCISE enough, since SpaceX do not label individual fairings and upper stages like this. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I see a chaotic usage of infoboxes on spaceflight articles. Such usage is listed below:
In order to mitigate these and similar problems, I composed an essay at User:Soumya-8974/What infobox should be used on spaceflight articles. Any thoughts? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
For one thing, you don't address what the facilities should use.
Good day all. I'd like to request some additional eyeballs at SpaceX Merlin#Gas generator and the corresponding talk page entry at Talk:SpaceX Merlin#Gas Generator. While I believe the anon which added all the material about pollutants generated by the gas generator is acting in good faith, the amount and detail of material plus over-citing reads as WP:UNDUE and almost hit-piece-y, and this is definitely not in my area of knowledge. Eaglizard trimmed some prose and citations, but some of this has since been re-added. I'm unsure if this material is warranted here, should be moved to the generic gas generator article, or something else done. Thanks all! — Huntster (t @ c) 05:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
There are only two active members in the space stations working group: me and N2e. I have a growing interest in space stations, hence joining the working group. The working group is currently in the brink of being inactive. In order to revive the working group, I have to recruit new members from this WikiProject. Any members with an interest in space stations should join the working group. Thanks. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Should "(spacecraft class)" be used to distinguish between individual spacecraft and a class of spacecraft? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 05:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
A new subpage called "featured topics" is formed to improve articles towards the GA and/or FA status. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Featured topics. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at commons:Commons:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry § Requested move 4 September 2020. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Perigee Aerospace planned a rocket launch on July 2020, but since then, the article is not updated. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Was surprised today to find that the article Ground support equipment was 100% restricted to the scope of GSE for aircraft at airports. No mention whatsoever of "launch vehicle" or "rocket" etc., and of course no explication of rocket/LV GSE.
I've not found any other Wikipedia article on GSE for spaceflight-related purposes. (e.g., Ground support equipment (spaceflight), Ground support equipment (launch vehicle) or Ground support equipment (rocket) to disambiguate the multiple uses of GSE; it's not all airports and aircraft.) Searching didn't help either.
Do we have any article on this important aspect of spaceflight operational equipment? If not, should we? N2e (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Jonathan McDowell, astrophysicist at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has been tracking launches, spacecraft and derelict rocket body orbits, and such for years. He recently provided a cool dataset (with a pretty basic and not-great-looking graph, here) of payload tonnage by provider by year.
I really think this sort of data would be great in Wikipedia, especially is one of our more graphics-talented editors like User:JFG, User:Soumya-8974, or other interested editor might consider making some graphic that is beautiful and explanatory for the wikipedias of the world, and place it on Wikimedia in both English and unlabeled formats, so that other language Wikipedias might use it as well. I would think Jonathan's data set based on his sourcing of the data adequately verifiable (the table, not his graphic) to be used in a citation. Thoughts? N2e (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The tweet from Space Shuttle Almanac sad that Tom Cruise and Doug Liman will be part of SpaceX Axiom Space-1. Is this correct and can I add this add the articles? --Malo95 (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Space program of the United States was rejected for being non-notable. Therefore, I decided to form a list version of it and name it List of space programs of the United States. What do you think of this list? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The Russian space industry has formally joined the ranks of entities building methalox launch vehicles. Amur was publically announced today, with a contract signed for preliminary design. They are aiming for low-coast launch operations (US$22 million per launch) and a reusable first stage, after the Russian industry lost the commercial satellite market share they held in circa 2010-2013 with the Proton rocket, as SpaceX Falcon 9 came online in a big way. I've created an article stub for the new launch vehicle, but would appreciate more eyes on it and other editors who might improve this beyond stub level. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The "Year in spaceflight" articles such as 2024 in spaceflight currently has very large sections (uncollapsed tables) for "Orbital launches". The section is far longer than the "Deep-space rendezvous" and likely of less interest to most readers of the article, making the article less interesting, useful and navigable.
Can you please help decide on the ordering of the articles' sections? I currently see no good reason for burying the very short section beneath these very large tables which mostly contain launches of near Earth satellites even if its contents are considered to be more important by most experts in the broad field of "spaceflight" (in general) who are not the readers of the page.
Here I suggested to move the "Deep-space rendezvous" section further up. Please join the discussion, thank you.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters from October 2015, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I have created 2 articles on human spaceflight, they are currently awaiting review. Is there a way to ask other contributors here to review my work (If any of you are Moderators or Admins), or my only option is to wait in line like all others? F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I have drafted User:Soumya-8974/SpaceX landing zones to cover all landing zones of SpaceX in one article instead of covering them at different articles a la SpaceX launch vehicles and SpaceX rocket engines. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I am going to make a new issue of The Downlink and release it on 1 November 2020, you can see its current form here, and if you want to see anything / have suggestions on what should be on the issue please put it on the newspaper discussion. If you want it added to your talk page when it is released then add your name to the Recipients section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink. Thanks, Terasail[Talk] 12:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink/Issue 4 for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink/Issue 4, since it is an old page where an issue was never finalised and there is only two uncompleted versions of an issue kept on the talk page. Terasail[Talk] 14:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
According to ru:Союз-7 (ракета-носитель), Amur (launch vehicle) and Soyuz-7 (rocket) are about the same thing and should be merged into one. Best regards ! Artvill (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Interesting new info to me, but I think there is a small matter of process, and where this discussion should happen. WP policy says these sorts of proposals should be on the article page(s), so that editors working on those pages can be aware of the discussion. Currently, neither page has a notice saying this discussion is going on. For a meaningful and robust discussion, that ought to be done, and probably these comments added to whichsoever location is decided for an open discussion that is linked in those notices.
Personally, I'll read into the matter more over the coming days and eventually leave a substantive comment on the merits, but really the proposer needs to provide notice in both of the articles. Pinging Artvill (who opened this section) and F.Alexsandr (who seems to have made the original observation about similarities between the two articles). Cheers N2e (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I have to say this. I have realised that it will never go beyond its revival. It is not worthy to have a working group with this subject. We could have working groups related to subjects like history of spaceflight, Space Race, etc. Therefore, it is better to mark the space stations working group defunct and redirect to the parent WPJ. @N2e: do you agree with my proposal to defunct the working group? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in a newsletter which notes the current tasks, current status of the WikiProject, launches of the previous month, new members? Terasail[Talk] 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, everyone! With discussion of the return of our newsletter, I thought I'd let you know what I've been working on.
As you know, my specialty is early robotic space missions, which don't get a great deal of love, particularly the Soviet ones. This weekend, I put together Proton satellite using my Elektron_(satellite_program) as a model. I think it turned out rather nicely.
Then, I happened to be reading SP-92 (Significant Achievements in Space Bioscience) and saw a couple of references to the Discoverer program. I'd intended simply to add notes to Discoverer 17 and Discoverer 18, but I found them in such bad shape that I revamped the articles. Whereupon I discovered that the overarching Corona_(satellite) article was an absolute mess (despite somehow having a "B" rating -- probably awarded to an earlier version). So I spent many an hour hacking it into shape. It's far from done, but at least it looks like an article now, and given that it's pretty well traveled, it was important to salvage. This marks the first time I've had the courage to work on such a big, visible entry.
I've decided to go through the Discoverers one by one and give them entries. Many of them don't have individual articles. So far, I've finished Discoverer 2, Discoverer 3, and Discoverer 4.
I like to work on individual spacecraft in a series, and when I feel I've got a handle on the program, modify/create the parent article. That's how I worked with SOLRAD (and I'll need to do SOLRAD 8 soon), Orbiting Vehicle, and (the woefully incomplete) Lincoln Experimental Satellite.
I'd be interested to know what everyone else is working on and what your particular methodologies are!
(and if you'd like to join me in the deep uncrewed past, I'd love the company! Let me know. :) )
--Neopeius (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
This question comes up a lot: "How reliable is [X]?" usually in reference to Mark Wade's site. I posted this on Hawkeye7's FAC and I think it bears repeating. Your mileage may vary, and/or you may have popular references to add to this:
--Neopeius (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Articles about crewed flights use country icons for the crew. So far it didn't matter if that flag was the country sending the astronaut or the country the astronaut came from, but now we have plans for astronauts sent by companies. Should we assign flags by nationality of the people or should we use company icons for people sent by companies? Or both? Some affected articles: SpaceX Axiom Space-1 and SpaceX Dragon 2#List of flights (Michael López-Alegría), Boeing Crewed Flight Test and Boeing Starliner#List of flights (Christopher Ferguson). I prefer a company logo - make the icon depend on the company or country employing the person. --mfb (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Not many opinions and no clear result. Any objection against "both"? Use the nationality for all people. If they fly as employees of a company the company logo can be added. --mfb (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
I accept using logos for private employees and flags for other space travellers. I am concerned that logos aren't always free. For this case, I think flag is necessary. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
A potential issue is that there have been cases of spaceflight announcements by those out of touch with reality (Mars One, Excalibur Almaz, Galactic Suites Design, to name a few). And companies previously with a low profile may suddenly announce sending astronauts (for example no one ever heard of Yusaku Maezawa before the dearMoon project announcement). Thus, I suggest that for now, the use of company icons be strictly limited to the following eight:
This way, only space companies with well documented histories of operation will be accounted for. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
"Not many opinions and no clear result" might be because people who are interested in this (such as myself) had no idea this discussion was going on. My take is that the flag represents ONLY the nationality of the person, not the flag of the national agency or the corporate entity which sponsored them. Otherwise you'd have to go back and retroactively change Charlie Walker (McDonnell Douglas), Greg Jarvis (Hughes), Lodewijk van den Berg (EG&G), Byron Lichtenberg (MIT), Taylor Wang (JPL), Loren Acton (Lockheed), Sultan bin Salman Al Saud (ARABSAT), Jake Garn and Bill Nelson (US Congress), Robert Cenker (RCA), Sam Durrance (Johns Hopkins), Ron Parise (CSC), Martin Fettman (Colorado State University), Albert Sacco (Worcester Polytechnic Institute), Roger Crouch (MIT), Greg Linteris (NIST), Jay Buckey (Dartmouth)? Those are just people who flew on the Space Shuttle, there are others who flew on a Soyuz to Mir or the ISS . Do John-David Bartoe's and Paul Scully-Powers' entries need to reflect their military service branch flags from being Navy Payload Specialists (not NASA astronauts), Gary Payton and William Pailes from the Air Force, or Tom Hennen from the Army? On List of astronauts by first flight they only have a single flag, for nationality, is this a new separate standard that is being proposed? Wizardimps (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Since talk pages of working groups (excluding The Downlink which is not considered a working group) are rarely used, should we centralise discussions (excluding discussions related to The Downlink) to the parent project a la WT:MILHIST? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I had read in the Project Spaceflight guidance and had been told by my Spaceflight mentors that SI first with conversion to American units was preferred. I have labored to compose my articles with this in mind.
I recognize that NASA might have done planning in American units, but that was also 60 years ago. For consistency, for promotion of SI (which makes more sense than pounds, furlongs, and fathoms), I would like consensus on this matter.
(I noted that a user had gone through one of the pages I'd worked on and reversed all the unit orders. That's what brought up this conversation.)
What think ye?
--Neopeius (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add a reference to the VSS (Virgin Space Ship) prefix given to Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo spaceplanes to the Ship Prefix page, but an admin told me it was for surface vessels only, which makes sense. However, I was directed here by him to discuss if a "Spacecraft Prefix" page should be made. I know the Bigelow Commercial Space Station was originally called "CSS Skywalker" (Commercial Space Station). Should these be given their own page, with maybe a reference to USS Enterprise and USCSS Nostromos, etc. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PythosIsAwesome (talk • contribs) 17:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The former Space misssions WikiProject created a boilerplate template for (specifically human) space missions. However, since the WikiProject is merged to WikiProject Spaceflight, I haved moved the template as a subpage of this project. Are there any interested editors to look into this boilerplate?
Link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Human spaceflight boilerplate.
--Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I am watching the TV series on Disney+ The Right Stuff — which by the way is slightly below average — and out of curiosity I tried to look in wikipedia for the biographies of the wives of the original Mercury Seven astronauts. I was kind of surprised there is none, except Annie Glenn. These women have been portrayed in a number of books, movies and TV series — and of course in Life — and I was kind of surprised they have not been considered worthy of a wikipedia entry. Thanks Hektor (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw in Archive 7 of the talk page that an alternative header for SPFLT was proposed. I have implemented it with several new features:
--Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we have written many spaceflight articles for literate people. Now its time to write spaceflight articles in Simple English with limited vocabulary. Well, there is a Wikipedia for this purpose, which is called Simple English Wikipedia. Are their editors interested to write spaceflight articles in Simple English Wikipedia? If so, then we can form a branch of WikiProject Spaceflight there, with advices, open tasks, and banners written in Simple English. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
When I began to reorganise the WikiProject, I saw that some sub-projects (all defunct) are called "task forces" and others are called "working groups". According to a 2011 interview between SPFLT members and The Signpost:
WikiProject Spaceflight has Task Forces as well as Working Groups. What are the differences between the two?
- Colds7ream: They can pretty much be thought of as an experiment in collaboration. The Task Forces are what remains of WikiProject Human spaceflight and WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight, and their model is to operate a large editor base responsible for a range of articles with general aims. The Working Groups on the other hand, we see as task-dependent. Their model is to take a small group of editors and a small group of articles, and carry out a specific task.
- GW: When this structure was decided upon, the Task Forces were intended to look after large numbers of articles, taking care of general tasks and breaking the project's content into more manageable sections, as well as maintaining a structure similar to what had existed prior to the reorganization. In practice, the project has become more centralized than expected, so maybe this element of the structure needs to be reviewed. The Working Groups are intended to be small groups of editors collaborating on an area of common interest, and in some cases with a particular goal or end result. We currently have two such groups with very different aims. The Timeline of Spaceflight Group is attempting to produce a comprehensive timeline of spaceflight, listing every spaceflight since 1943, while the Space Stations Working Group works to develop a series of Featured topics on space stations. The working groups are intended to be ad-hoc collaborations, which can be created for any purpose as long as several editors want to collaborate in that area.
However, such distinctions are not present in most WikiProjects (for example, sub-projects of WP:MILHIST are called "task forces" regardless of its size by participants or articles). Plus, task forces are defunct and we only have working groups. In order to be consistent with other projects, we should do away with the term "working group" altogether in favour of "task force". Any thoughts? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I will be working on a task force that will focus on Mir, ISS and Gateway and their missions. I will do so by renaming the existing space stations working group. However, it will be a joint task force between SPFLT and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. Are their any willing members to be collaborative about this task force? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
At List of government space agencies#Expected and proposed future space agencies there is an entry Australia-New Zealand Space Agency I think this is not real because the only source is the facebook page which is mentioned. The contact email at FB is stealth10@y7mail.com which doesn't look sirous. I think this is only a fanpage and nothing offical. Therfour it should be deletd from the list. Has somebody more information about it? Malo95 (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I am looking for an image of the Galileo spacecraft tape recorder. The Earth test article is on display at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. See [1] There are no public tours at present due to COVID-19, but maybe someone has an image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
My nomination of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory is stuck at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1) for lack of reviewers. If someone could drop by and contribute a few comments that would be appreciated. You don't have to review the whole article. But you may find the article an interesting read, being about the USAF's manned space program of the 1960s. The article has been around since 2004, but assumed its current form after the NRO declassified the documents related to it in 2015. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, folks. This is what I've been up to lately:
How 'bout y'all? :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It occurs to me that it would be really cool and useful to have a section just for posting updates on what you're working on and when you'd like a look-over. I recognize we have requests for assessments, but, for instance, @Hawkeye7:'s FAC for Manned Orbital Laboratory isn't even on there. I'd love to know what folks are doing and perhaps coordinate efforts.
Where would we put something like that? A sub-page of Discussion? A page of equal standing in Spaceflight's banner?
--Neopeius (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question for using the location parameter for Infobox spaceflight/IP. I wanted to add information on where Hayabusa2's capsule landed, but to use the location parameter, the type parameter had to be set as 'lander' or 'atmospheric'. This generates the results Earth lander or Earth atmospheric probe, which doesn't seem accurate for the capsule. Are there any solutions/alternatives for this? Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
| disposal_type =
| declared =
| deactivated =
| destroyed =
| last_contact =
| recovery_by =
| recovery_date =
| decay_date =
| landing_date =
| landing_site = New Jersey
Hi all- Wondering if someone might be willing to help complete review of some suggested content about the objectives and goals of the proposed NASA VERITAS mission. We have an edit request on the Talk:VERITAS_(spacecraft) page that's partly complete, just waiting for someone to dig into the "VERITAS Objectives and Goals" section. The existing copy is pretty thin, and the suggested replacement content adds helpful detail about what the mission would do, scientifically. Very open to feedback if modifications would make the edits more acceptable to the community. Thanks very much. Zoomanova (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello folks
Project Timeline hasn't exactly gone semi-active, but it has gone unmonitored. The progress page hasn't been updated in a decade.
I'm happy to work on it, at least up through 1966, but I'd love it if the other members of the task force could post their updates on the discussion page there. :) (yes, I know we've centralized discussions, but timeline is one of the still active groups.)
--Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7:, @Gog the Mild:, @Balon Greyjoy: I have finally gotten Spaceflight before 1951 into shape, though I would like consensus on how frequently items should be linked. But it has a good, well-researched lede, a comprehensive launch section, and a nice summary section. I'd like to get all the timeline articles to Featured List status, and this is the first. :)
(anyone else is welcome and encouraged to assist, but I've earned review karma with the three pinged folk. :) )
--Neopeius (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The Apollo Applications Program (AAP) page is really short, and it only talks about just a few of the applications that were discussed back in the late 60s/early 70s. Does anyone here know of any good sources that we could use to help beef that page up a little bit? It's not a stub, but I think it only barely qualifies as a page on its own. XFalcon2004x (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Could someone who knows about such things have a look over NASA research? This is possibly the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and there's stiff competition for that title. Given that it only has two incoming links, consistently averages 1/4 of the pageviews of Cats That Look Like Hitler, and that presumably everything here is already covered in English rather than gibberish on the article for each NASA program, I'm strongly inclined to just delete it, but you're better placed than me to say if there's actually anything here worth salvaging. ‑ Iridescent 16:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Space construction currently redirects to space manufacturing. It occurs to me this should be a different topic. As how manufacturing and construction are different topics, and wikt:construction could mean a structure.-- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Recently, the separate articles for Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 have been merged, as they were really two complementary flights in a single, coordinated event: the first group flight. The two missions also launched and landed at very close times to each other, so it does make sense to treat them together in a single article, rather than giving each launch/landing its own article. This might also be appropriate for other existing articles.
This is something I've been thinking about for several months, especially in connection with early Soviet group flights which were explicitly planned and executed as such, and did not link up with a space station. My initial suggestion (on a broader talk, independently of specific articles) is to merge the following three groups of articles along the following schema, per the above:
I raise the idea of merging certain crewed mission articles here for general discussion, and also to avoid "double work" if others are already working along similar lines (merging Vostok 5 and 6 is the next logical place to go, and perhaps JustinTime55 is already working in this direction). I would also like to distinguish cases: despite the complex crew transfers among later Soyuz missions and space stations, this type of article merger would seem most appropriate to "one-off" events like these earlier group spaceflights (not linking up with any waiting space station) which have definite, concurrent beginnings-and-ends, and not the continuous space station activity which later obtained over several overlapping missions (and crew transfers between craft). I also think that such mergers are most appropriate when the crewed missions have shared launch and landing times very close to each other (hours, say). In principle Gemini 7 and Gemini 6A might be merged along the above lines, but the latter being a much shorter mission would be a point against, in my subjective take on things. Similarly, there is a question of whether stubby-uncrewed target articles like Soyuz 2A and Soyuz 2 might not be merged with their respective crewed mission articles Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 3, and so on.
Another consideration is that other areas of the encyclopedia would manifestly have to (continue to) point to each mission separately (lists, records, etc), but this is easily managed by redirects and clean-up in any post-merge processes, using "what links here".
What do editors think of this general idea, especially the three specific points above? If there is any traction I'll propose merge discussions at the appropriate articles. Are there any other crewed mission articles which ought to be merged with others, or with uncrewed mission/target articles? Pinging JustinTime55 Randy Kryn Soumya-8974 Kees08 Wehwalt on same. MinnesotanUser (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
As long as no-one deletes all my discoverer, Les, solrad, and OV articles :-) --Neopeius (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Fire in space has been nominated for deletion. Do we have an article(s) on fire experiments in space, combustion in vacuum by supplying oxidizer, and fiery accidents in space? -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Those sources might be sufficient to write an actual, meets-notability-criteria, article on "Fire in space", or since humans or human-made technology machines are involved, perhaps better would be "Fire in spaceflight."
But either way, near as I can tell no editor has ever tried to write that article. And the redirect being discussed is merely a name of some TV episode, which is also fine for Wikipedia. If some editors chooses to create an article on Fire in space [spaceflight?] I would be happy to weigh in on the RfD discussion. Else, I'll just let it go as TV episodes aren't much of an interest for me. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
On December 28, 2020, 2021 in spaceflight was split into 2021 in spaceflight (January–June) and 2021 in spaceflight (July–December) due to Wikipedia's post expansion include size limit. Some duplicate information remains on both pages, particularly with events which have not been firmly scheduled.
See the discussion at Talk:2021 in spaceflight (January–June)#Template post-expansion include size exceeded. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 21:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thus far, I've completed to FLC level the following articles:
Spaceflight before 1951
1951 in spaceflight
1952 in spaceflight
All of these have been submitted for FLC review, and I hope they might get some eyes on them. I look forward to the completion of the series -- all are welcome to join me! :)
--Neopeius (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Spaceflight! I'm Ed Erhart, part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications department. (You might know me better as The ed17.)
Have you ever wanted to ask an astronaut a question about living in space or the science that's done on the International Space Station (ISS)? Or perhaps you're expanding an article on human spaceflight and can't find a citation for an important bit of information? We're looking for community input on questions to ask a NASA astronaut.
For Wikipedia's 20th birthday, coming up on 15 January, and 20 years of continuous occupation of the ISS, we're working with Modest Genius to broadcast an interview with a NASA astronaut. Suitable topics would include Wikipedia's coverage of astronautics, scientific contributions made by crewed spaceflight over the last twenty years, and plans for the next two decades of spaceflight. We'll select the best questions to put to the astronaut.
If you have questions to submit, please respond below or send them to me via email by Sunday, 10 January (UTC). Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Just started a discussion over at Talk:SpaceX floating spaceport, about what might be a good scope for a new article created earlier today. If the topic is of interest, consider dropping by to discuss. N2e (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Tim Dodd is not a journalist working with editorial oversight. He is also not just some guy with a website. Providing accurate and educational information about spaceflight is his business. Do his articles count as WP:RS?
As for me; I do not consider Tim's site to be WP:QUESTIONABLE, but it would be WP:RSSELF. RSSELF states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications
. This describes Everyday Astronaut to me, but I am biased because I really, really want to use this article (Starship SN8 12.5 kilometer hop) for citation. What does this community say? JaredHWood💬 16:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I have created a plan to fulfill the merge request for In-space propulsion technologies into Spacecraft propulsion. Input from WikiProject Spaceflight editors would be much appreciated. There is a dedicated section for discussion of the merge plan. Please comment there. Once discussion begins, I will wait for it to quiet down before executing the merge. JaredHWood💬 17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
(I just posted this in MilHist and would appreciate opening the discussion here as well)
Hello, gang.
Since Mil Hist is possibly the most organized and active WikiProject, and since it's one for which I do frequent work, I wanted to open up the conversation here.
It has been my observation that Wikipedia is becoming an increasingly stagnant community. We still have our regular editors who have been here forever and are still diligently working, but new blood has dropped off, as has a lot of the conviviality that made WP a welcoming place back in the day.
I'm fairly new here, despite my ancient first-edit date. I didn't really start editing in earnest until about two years ago. I floundered at first, figuring out the Wikipedia style. I'm a professional space historian with thousands of articles to my credit, but I hadn't done encyclopedias before. The review process was intimidating.
I was fortunate to have been mentored and helped by a trio of great editors: @Kees08:, @Gog the Mild:, and @Balon Greyjoy: who very patiently made suggestions and improved articles I was working on (rather than just telling me what I did wrong; they let me learn by their example). They gave encouraging praise and pretty barnstars. Because of their support, I stuck with the project, and now I like to think I'm one of the more accomplished of the (scanty) new crop of Wikipedians. This is what I've managed thus far, most of it just in the last year.
With the departure of Kees08, things have gotten a lot chillier for new Wikipedians, at least in the Spaceflight and Mil Hist communities. I've been working hard to recruit new contributors, either by bringing in external writers who are new to WP, or tapping existing editors who have been mostly at the fringes. But it's been tough. I just lost one today -- when I let him out into the wild and he attempted to GA one of his articles, the reception was demoralizing. It's not that the suggestions people made were necessarily bad, but they were framed in ways that were discouraging and highly critical, especially for someone new to the process.
For example, here I nominated the new Wikipedian's article for GA for him since he's new, and it was summarily reversed, the article's assessment expressed in completely discouraging rather than encouraging tones. The subtext reads as "You submitted it wrong, and the article sucks anyway." Better phrasing might have been "Do you have connection to this article despite your name not being associated with it? Also, while the article has merit and I can see the author put significant work into it, it could use improvement in the following areas before it's ready for GA status (and if the editor be new, I'll be happy to offer advice and assistance.)"
The second attempt can be found here, in which Balon offers a fine review. However, I don't think "this article needs a lot of work. I would currently put it at B or C class. It doesn't do a comprehensive job of discussing Crippen and his career;" was necessary. It dismisses the work done thus far, and was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back. When I do reviews, I tend to start positive and end positive so as not to dispirit the editor.
Most new Wikipedians aren't going to have the experience and skills that I do and thus have the interest or stamina to become regular editors unless we go the extra mile to help them adapt.
We have to remember that not all of us are grizzled veterans. It doesn't hurt to be friendly, to praise what's good in an article while noting what can be improved. It doesn't help to be brusque or demeaning. It is important to remember that tone never carries well in a text-only medium. "Assuming good faith" is extra tough for newbies unfamiliar with the process.
Now, you may be thinking at this point: "Why should we coddle new editors? They can sink or swim just like I did."
I get where you're coming from if you're thinking that. After all, this is a volunteer gig for you, too. You've only got so much energy to spend, and your experienced comrades require less of it since they already know the ropes. But the consequence of that sentiment is what we are seeing: increased barrier to entry, greater attrition for existing editors, and a declining number of new editors to replace and augment the community. If we can't recruit and maintain new editors, we will eventually fall below the minimum needed to maintain Wikipedia. I'm already seeing this happen in Spaceflight.
Even as a somewhat experienced editor, I have been adversely affected by the growing chilliness at Wikipedia: Despite doing a lot of reviews and producing dozens of solid articles, this last year I've gotten barely a notice for my work. Often, I don't even get a "thank you" for my reviews. I've done my best to be positive and improving for editors, giving out praise and awards (many of which I've made myself), but such overtures are often ignored. I recognize virtue is its own reward, but it's a bit dispiriting to put positive energy out into the community and get virtually none back.
More than any other Project, Mil Hist has the potential to reverse this trend. What does Mil Hist do to welcome and encourage new Wikipedians? How does it keep current ones engaged? I know there's a "Best New Editor" and "Best Editor" although even those can be more negative than positive as they create clear "Winners" and "Losers." I've been trying to greet every new person who joins Spaceflight, and also to give out merit awards for contributions. Are there folks who do that on this project? Who is actively maintaining the community, making editors feel valued and appreciated, maintaining the espirit d'corps?
I'm going to be bringing on more apprentice editors this year. I'm hoping that, if all of us work together, we can make a community that welcomes and retains these and other new editors so that Wikipedia does not ossify.
I welcome, encourage, and look forward to your thoughts. Please let me know if my experience mirrors yours or if I'm missing something.
Thank you for listening. :)
--Neopeius (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I have opened a discussion on Template talk:Satellite and spacecraft instruments about the scope of that template. It would be far too large to include all Earth observing instruments, and indeed most listed instruments observe other planets, except there are a few Earth observing instruments. Inclusion criteria are unclear. I think we need some guidelines here. --Gerrit CUTEDH 10:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello!
Is it just me, or did we used to have a different banner for this project? Is there a copy of it anywhere?
--03:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, gang.
I have been making a push to get all of the Timeline of Spaceflight articles up to snuff. After all, they are classified highest priority, and they serve as good hubs for the project. While folks have done a good job of keeping the modern timeline articles up to date, pre-2009 has pretty much lain fallow for a decade.
So far, I have brought Spaceflight before 1951, 1951 in spaceflight, and 1952 in spaceflight to FLC status (I haven't nominated 1952 yet, but it's ready). 1953 in spaceflight is almost there, and I've made substantial progress on on 1954 in spaceflight. I've updated the working group page, too.
I've gotten a few eyes on the first article and none on the second. If my spaceflight brethren could peek in and give reviews, that'd be great. I would love to be able to have High priority FLCs in the next Downlink :)
Thanks!
--Neopeius (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Currently Hayley Arceneaux and Jared Isaacman have been categorized into Category:Commercial astronauts. To me this appears wrong, since they are on a single flight jaunt, and not some permanent space employee. I acknowledge that Isaacman is the person who funded the mission, and is listed as "commander". with Arceneaux listed as "medical officer". Should these two be reclassified into one of the other categories? Category:Space tourists or Category:Spaceflight participants, for example? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Inspiration4 Patch Art.png has been nominated for deletion on Commons. It seems likely it will be deleted as it seems to require a fair-use rationale, which Commons does not accept. It needs to be re-uploaded to English Wikipedia, with NFURs added for the capsule article and the mission article. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A textlogo [2] that does not meet the threshold of originality, and is thusly public domain, can be uploaded to Commons to replace the mission patch, for use on various other language Wikipedias, without any of us needing to know the language in question to write an appropriate NFUR for other languages. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
File:Inspiration4.png has also been tagged for deletion. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Textlogo versions have been uploaded to COMMONS, File:Inspiration4 icon.png and File:Inspiration4 Logo.png.
These can be used until such a time as the mission patch is uploaded to English Wikiedia under a fair-use rationale. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a debate on deleting an article about the Vacuum to Antimatter-Rocket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vacuum_to_Antimatter-Rocket
Hi everyone,
I have a question regarding the apogee and perigee indicated in the info-boxes of crewed missions (missions linked in List_of_human_spaceflights).
Some do not have sources, so I wonder where the info does come from. Some others have sources that link to obscure websites.
Taking for example the crewed missions to the ISS, it reveals an obvious mismatch with the known altitude of the Station. (Click attached homemade graph)
How can the apogee be so low compared to the ISS ? Maybe I am missing something ?
Most recent missions do not have these elements in their info-boxes. I think it would be a reasonable solution if you think, like me, that a lot of those could be inaccurate.
First time posting in a wikipedia Project. I did not know where to post this, and stumbled upon this page which seems to be the perfect place to post something like this ?
--LazyAssed Contender (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is being held here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Space.com and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Space.com_reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExoEditor (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Starting with List of Electron launches (Which I split away from Electron (rocket) pages) there seems to be increase in articles which split the list of launches from their respective launch vehicle pages. What should (or should there be) a criteria when a split becomes necessary?
When I split the List of Electron launches my intent in was because of Rocket Lab's claim that they will have frequent launches and that would cause the article to become too long. In hindsight this is probably WP:CRYSTAL.
Recently I noticed that there are similar pages or drafts being created:
The new pages do add new info in some cases (I like some of the new graphs in particular like "by orbit" - maybe other list of pages can add them too). But also some of the lists have the formatting changed from the original which I found confusing. I don't think infoboxes are needed as readers can go to the main page about the rocket to learn more about it. And the heading "About the <rocket name>" doesn't seem like an encyclopedic tone, but other then that the pages seem fine.
So, at what point should the list of launches be split out (or how many launches of a particular launch vehicle warrant a dedicated list of launches article)? What info should we have on those pages? OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@OkayKenji: @N828335: @OkayKenji: @N828335: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.238.109 (talk)
Okay. Just some of them have been waiting for over 5 weeks to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.238.109 (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC) @OkayKenji: @N828335: @OkayKenji: @N828335: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.238.109 (talk)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
2020 is missing most flights, 2021 is starting with the same problem. But do we need these templates? Where is the use case of "I'm looking at this satellite, I want to go to satellites that were launched the same calendar year"? If people think it's useful then the templates should probably be expanded to cover all launches. --mfb (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I would like help with Draft:Starship SN11. If you decide to help, please let me know on my talk page. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I also need help with Draft:Starship SN15. If you decide to help, please let me know on my talk page. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Please edit Draft:Super Heavy (rocket). 64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No Consensus User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
– I thought I'd open the discussion here, as it'd attract as many opinions as possible compared to if I placed it on the talk page of any of these articles. Anyways, it just seemed weird to me that we have different naming schemes going for the Northrop Grumman Cygnus missions and the Orbital Sciences / Orbital ATK Cygnus missions. The article titles for the Northrop Grumman Cygnus missions have a good naming scheme in which the mission name – "NG-10", "NG-11", "NG-12", ect. – is prefixed by the name of the spacecraft class being flown – "Cygnus" – in order to disambiguate the name from being a seemingly random assortment of two letters and two numbers (WP:DAB). We would get the same idea if we applied the same naming scheme to the Orbital Sciences / Orbital ATK Cygnus missions; we really don't need to further disambiguate with "CRS" in order to communicate that these are Cygnus spaceflight missions instead of something else called "Orb" or "OA" (WP:PRECISION), in my opinion. — Molly Brown (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 22:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Orbital ATK CRS-1to
Orbital ATK CRS-9. Then they switched to
Northrop Grumman CRS-10to
Northrop Grumman CRS-17. CRS-X is the consistent naming scheme of all the Cygnus missions from 1 all the way through to 17. I do not find "Cygnus" in the mission title anywhere but here on Wikipedia. I would therefor propose title names of
OA CRS-1to
OA CRS-9and then
NG CRS-10to
NG CRS-17. This makes a nice standard beside the SpaceX CRS-1 series of flight articles. JHelzer💬 13:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Dream Chaser-1or
Sierra Nevada CRS-1? I still think that CRS in the title is important to tie all the Commercial Resupply Service missions together and make them instantly recognizable. JHelzer💬 05:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Do any of you who are rocket engine aficionados know of other rocket engines that are gas-gas cycle? Gas oxidizer + gas fuel?
One I know of is the methox RCS thrusters and methox Moon landing thrusters SpaceX is developing.
Are there other examples? A lot of them? A few? N2e (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I suggest creating subprojects for the most important space companies and agencies, such as NASA and SpaceX. Discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/NASA/SpaceX subprojects. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a new WikiProject Draft named Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject SpaceX (company). Maybe, members from this WikiProject could help.
(I have moved Halo FC's draft infobox back to Talk:Space Race#Infobox Space Race?. Please consider this an informal RfC; you are invited to participate there te establish a consensus as to whether Space Race needs an infobox, and if so, what information that should contain.
FYI, I have been working on getting this article nominated for Good Article, and hopefully Featured Article. I'd also welcome opinions about that. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Shuttle-Centaur for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shuttle-Centaur/archive1, but given that my last FAC was archived for lack of reviewers, I though I would put out a call for reviewers. I found the subject fascinating enough to create an article on it, and I think it will do well on the front page if only we can get it through FAC. There's no need to review the whole article; just dropping by with some comments is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I need help with making a collection of space-related WikiProjects and articles. I need help!StarshipSLS (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I am working on Draft:Habitation and Logistics Outpost (Gateway Module) for the Mir, ISS, and Gateway task force. I need help expanding it. Currently most of it is copied from Lunar Gateway. Please ping me when you reply. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a notice that I've proposed to move Tianhe (space station module) to Tianhe Core Module. The relevant discussion can be found here. — Molly Brown (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Currently, only me and @JackReynoldsADogOwner are editing WikiProject Rocketry. We need more editors. Spaceflight and Rocketry are closely connected, so I thought people from this project might want to help. Please ping me when you reply. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)