This is an archive of past discussions with User:WDGraham. 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.
For coming into an ongoing GA review to point out some problems, which alerted me and kept me from passing an article while it still contained significant inaccuracies. Thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (The Downlink: Issue 1). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:
For all your work on the Spaceflight project. And Happy New Year. Hoping our Wiki project, and the greater enterprise, all progress wonderfully in the new decade. Wwheaton (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, with the Constitution, I figured that since practically all Japan-related articles use American spelling, it would be appropriate to change it. For the Suborbital change, I went in to change the spelling for just the JMSDF and GAC links, but my browser accidentally ended up highlighting every (subjective) misspelling and I wasn't really paying attention to that one at the time. 68.96.225.101 (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Generally, no article should be changed from one dialect to another unless it has strong national ties, or unless there is a clear consensus to do so. --GW…07:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:TLS-L
Hi. I see that when you created Template:TLS-L, you left 1945 as an unlinked year, unlike the other years. I went to edit it to correct that and saw the code for 1945 was commented out deliberately, so I left it alone. Why is 1945 not linked like the other years? Thanks. — O'Dea21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I remember now, people were busy in 1945. I wonder if it might be a good idea to simply delete 1945 from the list because now we have the inconsistency that when the template is in use on a particular page such as 2007, say, both 2007 and 1945 appear as black text in the open template, which is not strictly a "true" statement of which page the template is active in. What do you think? — O'Dea22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of removing it altogether, that would either leave a gap or a jump in the sequence. I have no objection to changing the colour, as long as it fits in with the links, and it doesn't confuse readers to have blue text that isn't a link. --GW…22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if you're aware, but there's a discussion going on here about reforming the infoboxes for spaceflight articles; you may have an opinion. Mlm42 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (The Downlink: Issue 2) was completed successfully. Happy editing!
Hi GW. ChiZero and I have been discussing something and he suggested I ask you for an opinion. Rather than copy the discussion somewhere else, it is probably best just to point you to that discussion on ChiZero's Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you reverted the change to the name of this probe I did in Template:Orbital launches in 1959. I understand that Luna 1 is a retrospective name but I insist it's a most common denomination than мечта. Anyway Luna soviet probes could be denominated with their development names, Ye-1 No. 4 in this case. Does it worth a discussion in WikiProject Spaceflight? Tom Paine (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Those templates don't use the most common names, they use the correct names immediately after launch, which in this case is Mechta. I agree that Luna 1 is the more common name, however exceptions can be made in cases where the common name is incorrect, so whilst the text in the navbox should remain the same regardless, a discussion on the title of the article itself would be beneficial. I do not believe that it would be a good idea to use development names for missions which received official names, since the official names would be the correct names of the missions. In the past I have only used the development names where official names were not assigned. --GW…18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Downlink
Just a quick note to say what a marvellous job you're doing with the Downlink - it's really useful, and I'm astounded as to how you keep track of everything. Is there anything specific with which I can lend a hand? Colds7ream (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.
We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.
We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hey GW. Question for you. I "know" (believe?) that every payload satellite that is orbiting Earth is considered notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Likewise, the definition I've seen in Wikipedia for NEOs seems to include heliocentric spacecraft ("they include ... a number of solar-orbiting spacecraft").
Do you know if this definition tends to include all "spacecraft", including the spent upper stages for these heliocentric payloads, which would also be in heliocentric (and potentially NEO) orbits? Or does the consideration leave out spent/nonfunctional/derelict heliocentric upper stages?
For earth orbits, do I have it right that payload satellites are Wiki-notable by definition?
Has Wikipedia any settled consensus on which, if any, spent upper stages in Earth-orbit are notable? What is the criteria by which they are, or are not? I realize of course that "non-functional" (and perhaps passivated) makes them generally of no interest for most, but not all, purposes. Clearly each spent upper stage uses up some of the common resource space "real estate" and thus creates a set of externalities for others who are attempting to utilize space, especially near-Earth orbital space. And I assume that spent upper stages typically sweep a larger cross-sectional-area than do their satellites, so would seem to have somewhat higher probability of a collision event than, say, the Kosmos 2251/Iridium collision.
Finally, and I'm guessing this one will be easy for you, where is the off-Wikipedia (public) database that would have the raw data on Earth-orbiting artificial satellites, functional and derelict, payload or spent upper stages? Do you happen to know if it is easy to sort by "spent upper stages" when looking at the data?
I don't think the notability of individual upper stages has ever been discussed. Obviously each class of upper stage is notable, however by precedent there are not currently any articles for individual units. The current situation is unclear since it has proven impossible to reach a clear consensus on any specific guidelines, and last time it was discussed it nearly resulted in a major rift within the Spaceflight WikiProject, so on the whole it is a can of worms that should probably never be opened. That said, the general consensus seems to be that all functional spacecraft are notable, as are non-functional payload spacecraft. There is no precedent for the inclusion of upper stages, in Geocentric orbit or otherwise, and my instinct would be that they are not sufficiently notable to be covered in their own articles. Going off at a slight tangent, one issue which has not been sufficiently resolved is the existence of launch articles - for example Falcon 9 Flight 1, as it is unclear as to whether the launch of a spacecraft is in of itself notable enough to justify its own article. In most cases, the launch is covered in the payload's article. Perhaps a way forward would be that if there is anything interesting about the upper stage, then it be covered in the article of the payload which it placed into orbit, or if a launch has its own article then it could be covered there. Perhaps the cutoff for having articles on individual launches should be if there is too much information on the launch, rocket and upper stage to display easily and concisely in the payload article(s). For data on objects in orbit, I would suggest looking for a copy of the Satellite Catalogue; personally I prefer Jonathan McDowell's version. --GW…16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think your suggested "way forward" to begin to cover anything interesting about upper stages in either the payload article (or the launch article, if it has one) is a very good idea. I have done one example today, by adding a "Second stage" subsection heading in the Falcon 9 Flight 2 article for a bit of notable second-stage info that I had previously added to that article.
I also agree that, by themselves, upper stages are not generally sufficiently notable to have an article of their own.
Okay, found it. It's here, and the discussion seems to continue to the next many Talk page sections as well. Very glad I missed that one. And I DEFINITELY don't want to do something on upper stages that would restart that.
Having said that, I'll just note here that I didn't see anyone bring in the argument that some of those orbiting spacecraft may create a conflict in space over the use of the inherently scarce space "real estate" and thus create an externality for others who are also attempting to utilize space. This may be a weak argument, but it does indicate that long-lived spacecraft may have one more idea in their favor for separate articles than, say, an extinct trilobyte that we have a single fossil of (as you correctly pointed out, they each get their own Wikipedia articles).
From here on out, I'll be thinking/working on your suggested "way forward" from time to time. Notable upper stages get mentioned in the payload article, or launch article if it exists. And I may one day try my hand at an article to tie together the topic (spent upper stages) at a macro level, rather than at the level of individual second stages. Thanks for your great help on this. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hey GW, how goes things? Was just wondering if you were planning on moving User:GW Simulations/DOS (spacecraft) into article space anytime soon? Was hoping to get started on the Salyut reorganisation we'd previously discussed. I've also started work on an editorial for you, not finished yet, which you can read in my sandbox at User:Colds7ream/Sandbox#Editorial if you're interested. Anyway, hope you're well! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. I'll try and get DOS finished soon. I'm a little busy in real life at the moment, if you want to make changes to it whilst it is still in my userspace then please feel free. The editorial looks good, the next issue is due out on Tuesday; do you think you can have it ready by then? Thanks --GW…20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (The Downlink: Issue 3) was completed successfully. Happy editing!
Regarding this edit: Could you tell me where exactly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight I can find information on handling and covering spaceflights in the news? I couldn't really find anything in a quick search. If there is a page or a section, it's probably best to link straight to it instead. --Conti|✉15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
At this stage it is a more general link to the project and its talk pages, however I feel that is the right place to be directing editors for guidance. The message was intended to suggest that editors could consult the project if they had issues they wanted to raise, if there is a better way to word this, feel free to suggest something. --GW…16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd try to keep it general, then. "For more information, visit us" or something. Are there any editing guidelines at all on the WikiProject? If so, you could link to them instead. --Conti|✉16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (WikiProject Rocketry activity check) was completed successfully. Happy editing!
I just wanted to let you know that I tried to find the naming convention for spacecraft before I created the article, and was unsuccessful with several searches. I think I tried "WP:spacecraft naming" and "WP:spaceflight naming" and some third thing that I no longer recall -- but I failed to find the naming standard you have developed. I did find a rocket naming standard using that sort of search. At any rate, you might want to create a couple of redirects to other sorts of ways that folks might go looking for "spacecraft naming". Just a thought. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
WikiSpaceflight-standards question (with an Orbital Express example)
Hi GW. As someone still pretty new to WikiProject Spaceflight, I'm not clear on the standard for article creation on satellites. Is it (typically) one article per Earth-launch? Or one article per satellite? Or something else? And by what criteria is it normally determined which way to go?
The example I ran into today is Orbital Express, which consisted of two spacecraft: the Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Operations (ASTRO) vehicle and a prototype modular next-generation serviceable satellite (NEXTSat). Near as I can tell, we have an article only on the launch and mission, not on the two individual spacecraft, which (per the article) have rather large differences in planned orbital decay, etc., making them both Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth today, but they would not track together, be in space the same time, etc. How is this normally handled? How should it be handled in your opinion? N2e (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
One per satellite. There are a small number of de facto exceptions where a single article covers a number of related spacecraft without articles of their own; I see these cases as programme articles, where the individual satellites have yet to receive articles. MiTEx is another example. The only situations where I would see it acceptable to make a permanent exception would be non-functional subsatellites (eg. Romb), and launch failures of multiple-satellite military missions where spacecraft details are not available (eg. the NOSS launch failure back in the 1990s). I've been meaning to sort Orbital Express out for some time, I will try to do it later tonight. --GW…18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! That is what I thought, and I'm good with that. I presume then that, as with the two sats I mentioned above, there are likely a large number of satellites that do not, but should per the standard, have articles? No?
Just curious. I know you plan to fix Orbital Express... But is there a place we keep a list of such "to be created" satellite articles. I have clearly created a few new articles from time to time, but I'm far from efficient at it. I imagine that, with some standard "virtual template" for a new article, the specifics on a bunch of new sat articles could be filled in rather more quickly on a day when someone with comparative advantage in creating satellite articles goes after it in a sort of "production mode". N2e (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
We haven't got a complete list. I started an audit of orbital spaceflights some time ago, but it is incomplete and out of date. I played around with templates for a while, but I found that it was hard to get the grammar right with then, so I wrote some software to assist with mass-production of articles by automatically querying online databases and then inserting the data into a boilerplate article. I have used it to write many of the articles on Progress and DS spacecraft and communications satellites; on a good day and with fairly simple spacecraft I can get a rate of four to six articles per hour with it. Unfortunately some of the integral components of the software are not redistributable, so I cannot provide copies for others to use. Hopefully I'll find some time to get back to writing large numbers of articles soon. --GW…20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hello, WDGraham. You have new messages at Talk:MESSENGER. Message added 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi GW. There is a discussion going on at Talk:MESSENGER, most of which you may, or may not, be interested in.
However, one part that I would really like your view on is the extent to which articles like MESSENGER are "articles about missions, not machines,". My guess is you have a lot of experience across the broader set of spaceflight articles where there is both a spacecraft (which as you and I have previously discussed, generally each get their own WP article, may utilize spacecraft-specific infoboxes, etc.) and spaceflight mission which is of course, if notable and verifiable, also worthy of coverage in Wikipedia. So my guess is there are quite a number of articles about both missions and machines (spacecraft), I would guess we might have some guidelines for how we deal with them, no? Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hey GW, just wondering what's up with this month's Downlink, and if you need any help with it? Also, could you please take a look at Mir Docking Module to assess it for the B-class criteria? Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been too busy to get anything done, and it is now so far into the month that I was thinking it would be easier to do a longer issue next month instead. I might need someone to write the whole of the June issue as I am unlikely to be available for that either. I'll try to find time to look at the Mir Docking Module article. --GW…17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thank you for your interest in the ISS article, you have mentioned that the proposed draft is 'full of factual and grammatical errors' please elaborate on this by mentioning the factual errors, it would be a big help.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I did provide an edit summary. Spacecraft titles should be named according to WP:SPACENAME for consistency. I saw no reason to depart from that. The page will probably be moved to Tiangong anyway when the first one launches, as it will become the clear primary topic. --GW…07:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Collateral oops
Sorry about that. I got an edit conflict with you while trying to fix the time conversion and it seems to have dragged that out from somewhere - I didn't knowingly edit lower down the page at all and I wouldn't know the difference between those two things if it bit me on the nose. Apologies! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi GW. I attempted to add a quotation you requested in the article Comparison of heavy lift launch systems. That quotation now supports "the definition of 'super-heavy lift' given in the Augustine report," such as it is. That particular "note" does not say anything about 50,000 kg, nor is it implied to be 50,000 kg by where the note is placed in the article, so I think my cite is probably okay except for the formatting problem mentioned in no. 1 below.
However, that change led to a nested set of other changes and issues. I would like your help on three things:
1) please check the formating of that "note". Apparently I don't know how to do syntax for a note with a cite template included.
2) please check how I handled the other location (in just this article) where the 50,000 kg claim was made. Validate I marked it up correctly.
3) You will find that that same citation is used two other places in a template (Template:Launch vehicles) that is used in the article. I went to that template to indicate that both the 50 tonne (SHL) and 20 tonne (HL) "failed verification". Please check that out; but be sure to see the Talk which has some history (from a few months ago) where editors are discussing what is, and what is not, cited.
If you have any energy left for this issue when you are done, there is a meta-question from some time ago on the Talk page of the Comparison of Heavy-lift article (Talk:Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems#Definition_of_heavy_lift) that has never been resolved. In reality, as far as I know, Wikipedia has no referenced support for the definitions of small lift, medium lift, mid-heavy lift, and heavy lift. So I really question if Wikipedia ought to have these definitions and sub-classifications without good support for the definitions. Your input would be welcome. Thanks for reading this far. Please ping me if you decide to help improve this topic. Best regards, N2e (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
how difficult is it to get the ball rolling on merging the launch system articles anyway? I think there needs to be some sort of formal merge discussion in advance but I've never been very informed regarding any formal wikipedia process much more complicated than a simple direct edit. The launch system articles clearly need to be merged.Zebulin (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks GW for jumping in with a substantive proposal to improve the mess that was those five comparison articles! I have offered support on the appropriate Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I think popping in a poorly written starter was more attention seeking to get some new editors into the project, they'd probably know more than I do about it. Every scrap of trash or photographic artifact gets a writeup, no reason why that power can't be harnessed I though. That community loves to chit-chat, and we always need more editors. Incidentally what do you think of the other 'proper' work going on ? any tips ? Penyulap talk10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
There might be a case for caps in "integrated truss structure", but why are you moving common nouns such as "scanning multichannel microwave radiometer" to upper case? It's a type of radiometer, isn't it? Would you capitalise Electric Drill? Lawn Mower? Vaccuum Cleaner? Tony(talk)08:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In the context of that article, it is the name of an experiment flown on two satellites; the article refers to the specific instances rather than the abstract concept, and hence it is a proper noun. --GW…08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
First, do NOT template regulars; second, you could equally supply a substantive section title rather than a meaningless "September 2011", which I've changed. Third, no, edit-summaries are not obligatory. Tony(talk)08:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
In response to your point here, thanks for the explanation. The article refers to the equipment items in the plural in one place: "The final few months of operation was considerably fortuitous as it allowed the calibration of the radiometers and their products", downcased. Can you assure me, then, that these radiometers were unique and have not since been used in other circumstances? Tony(talk)08:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think dealing with these on a case-by-case basis, possibly through WP:RM would be a good idea. With regards the SMMR, there are sources which use the other capitalisation, such as NSIDC and NSSDC. That said, it is clear that neither usage is universal, in some cases it isn't even consistent within the same site - this is from the same site as your third example) --GW…08:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's a good reason, I think, that WP's house style should prevail. Like all publishers, we don't allow other publishers to dictate our own style: what's at stake is often internal consistency within the publication (in this case en.WP); when no one or hardly anyone externally applies our house style—or when it's a proprietary or patented or commercial term—a strong case can be made. But here, that's not the case, so we go with the significant proportion who do lower-case it. (Clearly, a lot of writers in the field are uncomfortable with the alphabet-soup effect ... very clunky for readers, especially those who don't look at an item every day. Someone writing up the original ISS documentation clearly decided they'd pump it up anything vaguely technical with caps; this goes against traditional capitalisation rules in English.) Tony(talk)12:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, should have checked who it was. He made a few questionable and unexplained moves, one of which was cut-and-paste, and I'm suffering from a lot of Wikistress at the moment, I just didn't check who it was. --GW…08:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Some of these equipment item names are clearly on one side or the other of the capitalisation rules; others are in a grey area. I'm happy to discuss them with you on a case-by-case basis. Have you been in a position of having to draw the line between the two options before? If so, your input to capitalisation more generally would be appreciated. Tony(talk)08:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Within the field of spaceflight, we generally lean towards regarding all spacecraft and instrument names, both descriptive and abstract, as proper nouns. That said, there are exceptions, and I am not aware of the issue ever having been discussed in depth; it is more of a de facto position, and I would welcome a more detailed discussion on the pros and cons of each approach. --GW…08:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
But see the examples I found above (nearly half in the first ten google rankings). Obviously, people in the field use both, and unless there's a very good reason for capping an item, WP:CAP says, then assume it should be lower case. There's widespread abuse of capitalisation in a number of fields, including business and management, architecture, and IT. It's a slippery slope, and many house styles, including our own, say lower case is the default. Tony(talk)12:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there is no internal consistency, and WP:CAPS is widely ignored. Might it be worth opening an RFC on whether the guideline could be improved and clarified? --GW…07:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from NASA Astronaut Group 21, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Specifically, I declined it per WP:POTENTIAL. While there is little available now, the article is clearly notable and I believe that should be left as a stub article. Even as a stub it should serve a useful purpose. Safiel (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hello WDGraham/Archive 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi. When you recently edited 1980 in spaceflight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raduga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. When you recently edited SES Astra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Headend (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
![18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WDGraham/Archive_2011#c-85.233.19.211-2011-01-11T18:18:00.000Z-Source_of_the_data_of_"Orbital_launches_by_year.svg"){kind=link}