Talk:International Space Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article International Space Station is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2010.

Dialects of English and national connections to the subject[edit]

A single editor keeps making the claim that such topics have been discussed again and again. This same editor refers to how a (what I found to be probably non-existent) consensus was reached with regard to the dialect to be used. However, I just have to say that following a search, the earliest discussion about this I could find wasn't even a real consensus, and half the "arguments" were unjustified non-arguments (by general users in the discussion). Many were saying to use British English because it is an international subject, but British English does not equate superior or international English. Forcing editors to use a single dialect on something like this is bad in practice, and WDGraham keeps acting like there was no consensus to change the dialect, but there was no consensus to change to British English in the first place. This not only goes against WP:RETAIN but also goes against WP:TIES. Within reason, there should not be a single dialect which editors are restricted to use. At the very least, I think editors should at least show respect for national ties to United States and Canada by neglecting the {{British English}} template; {{Use British English}} is already used on the main page, and that is the tag that makes a difference. Using the British flag on an article such as this misrepresents the international nature of the project. If you hope to end this, I would suggest providing links to any places where a decision was made to formally establish British English as the variant to be used in the article, and not any of that "no consensus" nonsense. Dustin (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I won't just sit idle if nobody responds. Dustin (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You should not make changes without establishing consensus, and lack of response is not de facto consensus. Huntster (t @ c) 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I said that so people would not just try to ignore me and hope that I wouldn't do anything. Dustin (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
And the addition of that template was made without any real consensus anyway from what I can tell. Dustin (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I hate to say this, but if nobody even cares to defend his or her position, why should I refrain from making changes? If silence persists, I will make whatever change I deem to be necessary. Not just on this page but on a variety of pages, this sort of issue needs to be addressed, and the usage of national flags on English dialect templates should be reconsidered. This topic has very few connections with the flag of the United Kingdom, so why should the flag be used? That would be like using the flag of India for an subject almost purely associated with Britain. Dustin (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Well since no-one has responded, here's my comment: I knew that this topic has been a PITA some years ago and maybe bringing up this topic will bring along explosive events ;) (I was never involved with that incident) , however I am actually siding with abolishing the British English guideline due to the reasons above (and yes I know that the main usage of British English in the first place was due to most of the parts being written by just the handful of users who use it, just like me), and also because the reason to put this template up in the first place - some editing wars a few years ago - has not come back for a long time already. Personally I don't see the point of keeping it here - well maybe that's because I really don't care about British vs American English and actually use both interchangeably. ;)
That said, I suggest that the user above not to remove that template until at least a few more user have commented on this and also discuss if there are any issues that could arise with removing it. I don't want this to kick open a box of explosives again and further damage this article that has already been demoted some time ago..... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I know that may not have been the best response, but it is probable that my attempt at discussion would have been ignored otherwise. If a dialect had to be used, it should probably be American English considered the greater degree of involvement than Canada or the United Kingdom, although Canada still has made many contributions so would be a better candidate than British English. Requiring British English under the current circumstances is unacceptable, however, considering the major lack of contributions. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom is only mentioned once in the entire article () and it isn't even in the main article text but is in a list under the European Space Agency in the International co-operation section. The United States and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are mentioned so many times that I cannot easily count them (over 200 times, though) and Canada and the Canadian Space Agency are mentioned what appears to be about 25 times. The United Kingdom is only mentioned once in this article. I know that the terms used in an article are not completely representative of the national ties of the subjects, but clearly, the UK has next to no national ties to this subject. Dustin (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is paying for the Space Station? The article should be written in USA English. GroveGuy (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are to use consistency, then the American English dialect makes more sense than the variant used in the United Kingdom. Just consider the amount of involvement... there needs to be another discussion about this, but one where it isn't just the British editors saying "keep as is" and American editors saying "change it". I have provided my reasoning. Dustin (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is probably the only comment I am going to make in this thread. As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with having a good-faith, civil, discussion that does not go round in circles for years. Penyulap's attitude made that impossible before, but he is gone now. That said, I do not believe that Dustin is capable of engaging in such a discussion, nor that he has the interests of this article in mind. He has already proven himself to be a disruptive editor by making threats if he does not get his own way[1][2] and he seems to have an agenda. This attitude, combined with his opening comments containing an attack against me despite no previous contact that I can recall and the same tired arguments about discussions that happened over five years ago, are the reason that I have avoided this discussion until now and until he begins to conduct himself civilly I do not believe a useful discussion can take place so I'm out. --W. D. Graham 10:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. You have acted in the past as though there were a consensus to change everything to British English when there was none. It is not fair that you think you and and your supporters can just keep your way by just ignoring me. With regard to personal attacks, that was not a personal attack: "WDGraham keeps acting like there was no consensus to change the dialect, but there was no consensus to change to British English in the first place."; there was never a consensus to adopt British English, but WDGraham in the past has acted as though this has been talked over and decided, when it has not. Dustin (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
If anything, this user was attacking me by calling my edits vandalism just because they go against his viewpoint. Dustin (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This user has fabricated the idea that I am "attacking" him, but this is not true. These kinds of editors are willing to ignore me in the hopes that nothing changes; that is why I am removing the tag. I did not vandalize; "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I am not doing this to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and the very few actions I have taken by removing that tag have done nothing to harm the article. That is the very reason I chose that tag to remove. If I wanted to be disruptive, I would have converted the entire article to my preferred dialect, removed the tag on this talk page, and demanded that the edit notice be removed. I have done nothing of the sort. With that massive edit notice, it is pretty much useless here anyway. This user is making me out to be hostile, but no. I am willing to discuss. The problem is what to do when many people either just ignore the discussion or don't notice. I apologize if I appeared that way, but that is a really bad interpretation of my intent. Getting "this user is a vandal" (with his "rvv" edit) for two twenty-byte edits which did nothing to harm the article is a failure on this user's part to assume good faith. This is not a personal attack; it is a defense and the truth. Please understand. Dustin (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Should there be an RfC? After searching for alternatives, that seems to be the only viable way of drawing attention to the issue at hand. Dustin (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ref?[edit] Bananasoldier (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should British English be the primary dialect for the ISS article?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to retain the existing British English spelling. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Should the primary dialect this article uses be British English? Dustin (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Now after going about things in the wrong way, I have decided to try out an RfC as a way of drawing attention to the issue at hand. In the past, this issue has been discussed, but the last major discussion was nearly six years ago, you I think this issue should be reviewed. The United Kingdom has lesser national ties to the subject while the United States and Canada have greater national ties to the subject, and the great majority of funding among English speaking countries was provided by the United States, so I think that either no dialect should be preferred or one of the North American dialects should be used. That's just my say; let's hear your own. Dustin (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone has ever tried to argue that the United Kingdom has greater national ties to the article than any other country; it doesn't. It is a massive international project with contributions from many countries, including the US, Canada, ESA (for whose articles we typically use British English), and to a small extent the UK itself through ESA. Because of the large number of participants, several of them English-speaking, it has been held in the past that MOS:TIES does not apply in this case (or that ties are not sufficiently strong to justify changing from the current version). Therefore, because the article needs to be consistent, MOS:RETAIN is invoked - the article started out in British English so this is retained. I don't think anything has changed sufficiently since the 2009 discussion to warrant changing this attitude so I think MOS:RETAIN should continue to be applied. --W. D. Graham 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The International Space Station is, of course, and international project. However, for the purposes of consistency, the article must use a consistent form of English. Now, look at the English-speaking countries which have participated in project. We have Canada, the United Kingdom (participating through the European Space Agency), and the United States. The vast majority of the funding has come from the United States (including English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries), followed by Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada. Even assuming that 100% of the money contributed by Europe comes from the United Kingdom (which it does not), that still leaves the United States spending over ten times as much as the United Kingdom. The UK has largely withdrawn much of its support for the ISS, so it just does not make sense to use British English. This is an international endeavor but this is the English language Wikipedia; as a result, we must look at the English-speaking participants. That takes us back to CA, the UK, and the US. The United States does have national ties to the International Space Station which go well beyond all other countries, so if a dialect should be used, it should logically be American English the way I see it. MOS:TIES - Also with regard to what dialect the article started with, the most I can find out is that the first apparent dialect used could be British English because of the usage of Endeavour which is argued to be British English; however, that is not British English as that is a proper noun, meaning that even in American English, it is still Endeavour with a "u". I do not know what the first used dialect was, but when taking the strong national ties into question (the US has contributed over half of the funds), the United States clearly has put much more into this project than the UK. Dustin (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
      • We don't choose how we format our articles based only on financial investment. Trying to argue that the dialect should be changed because Britain is less involved in the programme than other English-speaking countries is a straw man - nobody is saying that it is British, just that the article currently uses that spelling and the earlier discussion found that ties to other countries were not strong enough to justify changing. It doesn't really matter what dialect the article was in when it was started because rightly or wrongly the current usage is established and that is what would be retained. For the record if you had read the original discussion you would be aware that this was the first edit which introduced a variation in English other than Endeavour. --W. D. Graham 09:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • The UK isn't just less involved. It is way less involved than the United States or even Canada. That's not to say there isn't a greater degree of participation by British citizens, but there is very little participation by the government of the United Kingdom in the project that is the International Space Station. Dustin (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a question: Does it really matter? This seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill; there is no disadvantage to our readers by using American or British English, if someone understands one they understand the other. I think the MOS guideline that we stick to the original language in the case of no obvious choice should apply here - it's not a big deal so lets not spend a huge amount of time debating this; just leave it as the status quo. Sam Walton (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    • This "status quo" is incorrect. If I am going to be forced to use one dialect of English, it should not be British English considering the next-to-nothing involvement of the United Kingdom. Dustin (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
      • If you're going to resort to wikilawyering there is no point having a discussion - regardless of how it came to be the article is currently stable, so that is the status quo; no ifs, buts or maybes; trying to make a point based on a perceived error in process five years ago is purely disruptive. This is exactly the same reason that nobody wanted to have a discussion with Penyulap and I find the similarities between your attitude and his increasingly disturbing. --W. D. Graham 21:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
        • If this were such a perfect title, there wouldn't be so many discussions getting brought up in the first place. Dustin (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


I support changing the article to use American English.

That this was not previously done means that the consensus to do so did not exist in the past, and is not inherently an argument in and of itself.
WP:RETAIN specifically mentions WP:TIES as an exception:
1. The United States' ties to the ISS are far, far, far greater in every conceivable way—whether speaking of financing, personnel, technology, origination, or ongoing logistical support—than any other English-speaking nation. It provides the vast majority of financing, it provided the comfortable majority of launchers for the components, provides a comfortable plurality (tied with Russia) of personnel, and until the recent end of the shuttle program provided a substantial number (not sure of fraction) of passenger seats.
2. Second would be Canada, which has provided financing, personnel, and technology, and whose English is closer to the American variety than British.
3. The United Kingdom, despite being a member of the ESA, has for various historical reasons not been very active in its manned space program; no Briton has visited the ISS, no Briton flew on the shuttle as a payload or mission specialist, and its first European Astronaut Corps member has not yet flown.
Finally, WDGraham (talk · contribs)'s almost immediate invoking of WP:LAWYER and near-invoking of WP:DISRUPTIVE, without evidence of (say) WP:GAME from Dustin V. S. (talk · contribs), is bizarre. It violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL more than anything Dustin V. S. has done so far. Ylee (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
On one hand, as I have commented on the section above, I do believe that the circumstances that required the British English tag has came to pass and has no further use today, as the one user that has problems with it is now blocked, and that today it would be unnecessary for it to be continued to be used.........
......on the other hand, I fail to see any convincing reason to require a mandatory change towards American English, simply because for the ISS it is not even an issue that should cause arguments to occur. I just can't see any reason to argue about it when the usage means nothing!
In any case, I think different editors of this article will use different English styles in this article without even noticing - just like me, who despite learning the British way in Hong Kong may have actually included American English usage. So, why bother with arguing? ;) Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this in RFC. IMO it doesn't matter as long as all English speakers can understand it. To save the hassle just leave it alone. Find other more important edits to worry yourself about. JKshaw (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not an unimportant issue, and there isn't much else to be worrying about with regard to this page at the moment. Dustin (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Just my opinion which ya'll asked for.
and FYI watch NASA TV and all the people who are actually up there speak Russian or American English.
JKshaw (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose changing to American English. Its fine the way it is. MOS:RETAIN says no unnecessary changes and per MOS:TIES your reasoning is invalid. It's called International for a reason. Summary: entirely pointless change, Strong Oppose. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I could just as well argue that your own reasoning is invalid, as the UK has provided little support (compared to others) in terms of funding and you failed to address the overwhelming difference between participation by the United Kingdom when compared to participation by the United States. The only country apart from the United States with very significant contributions is the Russian Federation. Yes, it is international; however in reality, the station is really operated primarily by the Russians and the Americans (there is also currently an Italian ESA astronaut there). This is the English Wikipedia, so we don't have to pay attention to Russia, Japan, or non-English-speaking European countries. That leaves us with the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. The United Kingdom is far below the U.S. in terms of participation and involvement, and it just doesn't follow logic that the participant with the least participation among involved (English-speaking) countries is the one whose dialect we are being made to use. Also, "It's called International for a reason." only works for the argument of removing dialect requirements for this article altogether the way I see it. Dustin (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Financial contributions doesn't matter. The article was written in BE, and per wiki policies it will stay that way. To the reader it doesn't matter and to everyone but you it doesn't matter. There is on of these discussions every other month on this TP and they all end the same way. There is no point or purpose in changing so we don't. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Suggesting that we ignore guidelines like MOS:TIES (which is relevant not just for finances but for participation) doesn't sound like a good counterargument. And what proof is there that this article was "written in BE" or that this was agreed upon? Maintaining British English through force does more harm than good when you account for the lack of involvement or participation. Also, MOS:TIES overrules MOS:RETAIN "when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity". The US beyond any doubt has strong ties to the project which was primarily funded by it and which, among English-speaking countries, it has participated in to the utmost. Dustin (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Financial contribution is as much contribution as anything else (even setting aside the massive American majority/plurality in all other forms of contributions to the ISS), and there is good precedent in Wikipedia when determining the nationality of other projects; look at Talk:Downton Abbey, for example. As for the "no point" argument, nothing in Wikipedia is inherently protected because of age. If a consensus comes to exist that the article's ENGVAR should change, it will change regardless of how long the current status quo has existed. Ylee (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question How do we prevent national bias here? Every time this has been brought up, I can see some degree of division between editors making their final choices based on national origin. Dustin (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose retention of British English. Financial support is irrelevant, it's readership that matters. I can't prove it, but it seems very likely that the article has many more US readers than British (or Canadian, or Australian, etc.). Maproom (talk) 09:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not how it works. Realistically there are many more people living in America than the UK, so in theory more American readers. And by that logic sure, but that's not how the Wikipedia policies work. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Readership statistics absolutely matter to Wikipedia; WP:PRIMARYTOPIC uses them as among its criteria. They are not the only criteria, but to discount them is nowhere supported in Wikipedia policy. Ylee (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This conversation has happened many times before and as the top notice clearly says Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments, especially about use of British vs American English, being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting about that topic. Restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even tendentious, unless consensus has changed or is likely to change.

Restarting a debate that has already been settled may be taken as "asking the other parent", disruptive and even tendentious, unless consensus has changed or is likely to change. I say close this debate now. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I call that a non-argument attempt at keeping opposing viewpoints away by prematurely closing the discussion. Editors never decided "we should use British English"; some editor just added the tag which could then not be removed. Dustin (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, in the first discussion, an involved user (GW) closed the discussion which may have skewed what would have been the final results. I'm not saying that was intentional, but, in my opinion, it should have been left to be closed by an uninvolved editor without a possible conflict of interest. Dustin (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
And I would argue that this topic has not actually been settled, and the last actual "discussion" appears to have been years ago. Dustin (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose retaining UK English. US English is the better choice, because more financial involvement, which imho is a very relevant argument. Would be an even stronger argument if the US contribution is larger per capita (is it?). MOS:RETAIN is a policy that comes with difficulties, because there only needs to be one editor against change to thwart choosing the most appliccable dialect. If someone wants to bother rewriting the whole article consistently to US dialect, i say go ahead. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am reluctant to accept the argument that involvement in the project, financial or otherwise, can be used to justify the statement that the project has strong ties to a particular nation. Yes, out of all the English-speaking nations involved, the ISS has the strongest ties to the US, but we require strong ties. I consider the fact that we're arguing about it here evidence of the fact the ISS does not have obvious, strong national ties to the United States. We have MOS:RETAIN for non-obvious and contentious situations like this, precisely so we can save ourselves the headache and just go with one thing. — daranzt ] 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Your begging the question aside, there is no way for the US to further strengthen its ties to the ISS other than to expel all other nations from the station. Quoting myself: "The United States' ties to the ISS are far, far, far greater in every conceivable way—whether speaking of financing, personnel, technology, origination, or ongoing logistical support—than any other English-speaking nation", while the UK's contribution is zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Ylee (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RETAIN. The ISS is not a United States program (the clue is in the name). While it has substantial input from NASA, there is also input from Canada, whose English is more like British than American. In terms of our readership, we do not weigh America's population against that of the UK. Indian and African Englishes tend to use Commonwealth spelling, so it is entirely possible that the majority of our potential audience uses "colour", "aeroplane", "travelled" etc. More to the point, apart from making some political point, what is the motivation for proposing this change which has been rejected so often in the past? WP:RETAIN was designed to avoid sterile debates like this. Let it do its job. --John (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • It wasn't rejected. It just wasn't agreed upon. It wasn't agreed to be British English either. Dustin (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per MOS:RETAIN – This is a clear case. WP:TIES only applies in cases where there is an unambiguous link between a topic and a particular country, like with the Fire of London. This entity, by definition, is "International", and hence WP:TIES does not apply. The purpose of WP:TIES is not to debate what has stronger ties to what, but to apply in cases where strong ties are unambiguous. In cases where multiple countries have strong ties, or where the nature of ties is ambiguous, MOS:RETAIN applies. The status quo should remain. Most of the above arguments are irrelevant, such as those about "readership". RGloucester 01:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose retaining BE per common sense: the overwhelming majority of en: references come from American sources. Why the additional burden to translate them into BE? Also, IMO the BE-speaking wp-contributors are far from majority. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can understand arguments against favoring a certain dialect of English, but I still don't think it is the right thing to keep it as is. There was never a consensus formed in favor of the current status quo, so you have to consider: What if this status quo is not the best place to default to? Should the "consistent dialect" be favored, based on the reasoning I have given earlier, I would favor English as presented in the United States. Should the "international" format be favored, we should just remove the tags requiring consistent formatting. It appears to me there me be arguments against not requiring consistent dialect when it comes to FA/GA class, which is why the most favorable option based on the reasoning appears to be en-US. Another thing to note is that I am not just looking at the funding provided by the United States; I am also taking into account the participation, the personnel, and the general involvement in the project which I do believe results in significantly stronger ties between the United States and the project than between the ISS and other nations. Just give it some extra consideration. Dustin (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Everything you're saying is irrelevant. Consensus is policy and guidelines, and according to MOS:RETAIN, we retain. That's that. There is nothing more to say, as funding, personnel, that's all irrelevant. Unless there are unambiguously strong ties to a particular county as opposed to all others, the variety is retained. Retain. Retain Retain. There is no weighing of who has stronger ties. If it is possible to do such a weighing, by default one knows that WP:TIES does not apply. There is nothing wrong with the status quo. One can read either variety without any problem. That's why MOS:RETAIN exists in the first place. Now, please, save us all a lot of pain and find something better to do. RGloucester 03:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Point of fact, WP:RETAIN doesn't prohibit links to other countries as well, it only says that strong links to one country should carry the day. Personel, funding, history, etc. all of course do count! They are prohibited nowhere. How could it be otherwise???GliderMaven (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not irrelevant, You have failed to provided a reason for which it irrelevant. How is this ambiguous? Among English-speaking countries, there is virtually no ambiguity (very vast majority of participation is by the United States with some by Canada and no support from the United Kingdom). And I do not perceive attempts to eliminate opponents of your view by telling them to go away (which I interpret "find something better to do" to be saying, pretty much) in a kindly light. Dustin (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do like getting rid of editors that I think are being disruptive for no real purpose or reason. The reason it is irrelevant is because MOS:RETAIN is clear, and it is clear that WP:TIES does not apply. This is not comparable to the Great Fire of London or Australian Defence Force. It is by definition international, has been contributed to by many nations of all sorts, and cannot be said to have strong ties to "one particular nation" as opposed to others. The wording is clear. Obviously we write Skylab in American English, for example, but this is not Skylab. It is not an American project with particularly strong ties to the US as opposed to other countries, and arguing otherwise is foolish. Once again, weighing "how many dollars" some country put into this project has no relevance on WP:TIES. The stable version must remain. RGloucester 05:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Entirely agree with RGloucester, this RfC is ridiculous and pointless and with no strong national ties such as The Fire of London of the 9/11 attacks that have actual strong ties which I think you are overlooking. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Having other English-speaking countries involved does not equate a lack of any national ties. You say "this RfC is ridiculous and pointless and with no strong national ties", but again, the amount of ties of Russia and the United States to the project outweigh all others, and since there isn't a Russian dialect of English, common sense would say that the logical dialect to use here would be that of the United States. Nowhere on MOS:TIES does it demand that there be no other countries involved. Yes, the US is not the only involved country. If it were, then it would just be the "National Space Station" or something like that. However, the US has far more ties, involvement, supplied personnel, and pretty much everything else than every other English-speaking country. Dustin (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Now you are calling me disruptive? You need to stop with the false claims and give actual reasons for which we use the dialect of a country with no significant involvement whatsoever. You cannot change the truth, whatever you may think. You continue to neglect the fact that having the word "international" in the name of the article doesn't actually mean it is balanced. The ties are strong, even if you choose to believe otherwise. And by the way, you shouldn't start calling other editors foolish. And yet again, this is far more than just dollars, it is actual involvement of which the UK is very severely lacking. Dustin (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The "involvement" of Britain or America is irrelevant, which is what you fail to understand. MOS:RETAIN. RGloucester 05:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you fail to understand. It is not irrelevant. As a matter of fact, it is very relevant. Dustin (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE retaining British english. I find that the article has strong national links to the USA; they paid well over 120 billion dollars to put it up, completely dwarfing other funding sources. The UK didn't contribute much to it, Canada did somewhat, but the contribution by the USA, of all the English speakers, and of any contributors at all is hugely bigger, and not just financial, they launched the space shuttle 36 times to build it. The retain argument fails because of this strong national link- it's specifically listed as a disqualifying reason for WP:RETAIN. The other arguments seem to be arguing bureacratically, but wikipedia is not a bureacracy.GliderMaven (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in British English as per WP:RETAIN. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plus, British English is more pleasant in this American's opinion. Also, can you guys not say Oppose for both changing and keeping? Consistency matters in trying to get a consensus, you know. This debate is silly—and bordering on ridiculous—in and of itself as it won't improve the article to switch it over to our dialect. Please find better ways to improve the article. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 25 Shevat 5775 06:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Random Comment:Haha I do find the variety of votes pretty funny. Oppose keeping BE, Oppose changing, Support change, Support retention Face-smile.svg. Have to focus to find out what everyone is actually voting for. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand why you may feel this way about this matter, but I still do not think that "RETAIN" should apply as Britain has virtually no significant ties to the project. If discussions about dialect were not ever going to be worth the time, then I don't think we would have MOS:TIES and others established. The page itself is not problematic, so I don't mind spending what is really just a small portion of my time commenting here. The time between the beginning to the end of a discussion may large, but the actual time that each comment takes to make is rather small. Aside from all of that, a good deal of trouble could have been averted if someone hadn't (apparently unilaterally) added the {{British English}} tag to the top of this talk page and converted the article to fully British English in the first place. Dustin (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose British English and support the use of American English in this article per MOS:TIES. There is no doubt the USA has the strongest ties to the ISS. Boeing is the prime contractor for the ISS...Boeing is responsible for ensuring the successful integration of hardware and software – including components from international partners. Flight control of the Zarya module and the International Space Station following assembly with Unity is conducted from locations in both the United States and in Russia, with the primary oversight for all operations resting with NASA. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support American English since the majority of funding came from the U.S. BMK (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • keep the present BrE – this type of garbage is why Wikipedia is such a pain in the ass to outsiders. as a Usonian i can read BrE or AmE. who cares what variety it is in? every time I read crap like this it reminds me why not to make an account. now that i've read this i see that RETAIN exists for a reason: this reason!! leave it alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • IP is not willing to address the problems I have brought up and did not give a reason for which MOS:TIES should not apply. If MOS:RETAIN did exist for the purpose of preventing all dialect-related discussions, MOS:TIES would not exist. This kind of comment should be disregarded. Saying "keep" just because you think the discussion is stupid is a non-argument. Dustin (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • You should not say to keep just because you do not like a discussion. Editors like this who hold these kinds of views (anti-discussion) should not be participating in this discussion at all. If you think a discussion is stupid, why bias the results by participating just in a counterproductive attempt to kill the discussion? I don't want this to turn into a simple majoritarian discussion where whichever side has more participants in the discussion wins. I want this discussion to be based on valid reasoning. Dustin (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • By the way, how is this "such a pain in the ass to outsiders"? Outsiders won't even see this discussion and don't look at talk pages. So no, I do not think this realistically is much of a "pain in the ass to outsiders". Dustin (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If it ain't broke, don't fix it! - There doesn't seem to have been a single reason presented as to how changing the article to US English will actually improve the article. MOS:TIES does not apply to an article about an international project, no matter how one might try to turn things into a pissing contest. Also, the idea of an RfC is to request comments from uninvolved editors. Can Dustin V. S. kindly refrain from interjecting after each and every comment only to rehash the exact same points ad nauseum. Thanks. nagualdesign 19:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but no. You continually fail to address the absolutely overwhelming involvement the United States has with the project versus the extreme lack of participation of the United Kingdom. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" is not a reason. And nowhere does MOS:TIES list any exclusions for international subjects! How about you explain to me that if I am going to be forced to use a single dialect of English, it should be that of the one place with practically no involvement? There is not a valid reason. If someone provides an invalid argument, I will respond to it. Dustin (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • And those "make better use of your time" arguments are unfounded as it takes next to no time at all to post a single comment, and aside from that, this article already is B-class. The biggest issue is that giant edit notice with the flag on it telling me what to do when this is an overwhelmingly US-dominated topic among English-speakers. The way this is going, we are going to end up with yet another failure of a good consensus with us having to use this "status quo". The {{Use British English}} tag only appears to have been added in December 2013 by WD Graham, and the {{British English}} tag was only added to this talk page without any discussion back at the extreme beginning of 2009. After that, some editors apparently assumed that having the tag must mean there was a consensus somewhere and just started changing everything to en-Br. The original status quo, if I recall correctly, was that there was no dialect established, so there wasn't all of this arguing. I am not trying to be disruptive like so many claim. I really think this is an issue worth addressing. Dustin (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, wind your neck in, mate. I haven't continually failed to address anything. I responded to a request for comment by posting a comment is all. Such is my opinion. If it was the American Space Station then MOS:TIES would apply, but it isn't. And I didn't mention making better use of your time. You're welcome to spend it however you wish. However, try not to waste other people's time by angrily repeating yourself. Despite your best intentions it is disruptive; I had to mess about just to add this comment because of an edit conflict caused by your insistence on being verbose whilst saying very little. Not getting your own way ≠ failure to reach 'good consensus'. That's all I wish to say. nagualdesign 20:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please look through the talk page archives to understand what I refer to when I mention the failure to reach a good consensus; this or more than just of failure to get my way as you put it. Never was there actually any consensus toward British or American English, but we were left with British English after (apparently) one editor unilaterally added a British English template to the talk page followed by a few actually changing the article to only British English. I understand that Wikipedia does not always behave in a fair manner, but many of these status quo arguments argue for what only became the status quo after a somebody changed things without discussion. This discussion would have been much better if only there had not been changes made to the article establishing British English without discussion in the first place. Now, thanks to the actions of a few users acting without achieving a consensus, many feel that it isn't worth discussion. I am sorry to cause you edit conflicts, but I want to try to not leave anything out, and I also sometimes correct typography errors. Dustin (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've already said that. nagualdesign 21:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that I repeated part of what I said. I do this to indicate that I think this discussion is not going to be balanced as a result of improper (but unintentionally harmful) actions in the past which now, if you follow the cause-effect chain, are responsible for people in this discussion in 2015 feeling this isn't worth discussion or that British English should be maintained per MOS:RETAIN where the status quo before all these discussions was "no dialect preferred", so MOS:RETAIN should actually be arguing for the no-dialect version. Perhaps we ought to think of this as we would if somehow the article had made it to 2015 without a single dialect being used in the article. If that had happened and we actually had a balanced discussion, rather than us ending with no consensus so retain the "status quo" of British English, we would have retained the status quo of no preferred dialect, which would be better I think. I'm sure we could still have an edit notice saying "don't change words from one dialect's spelling to another" in such a situation where we would still have both British and American spellings present in the article. In this way, we could avoid these "use one dialect or use another" arguments on articles. People argue that we must use a certain dialect, but that is incorrect the way I see it so long as dialect-neutral words are used. In reality though, as I have said before, some non-neutral editors five years ago changed it to British English without discussion, so this discussion by its very nature has problems being neutral. Perhaps a policy should be changed somewhere when it comes to dialects in international situations. I don't know. Realistically, unless we are willing to reconsider the original status quo of five years and two months ago (which I think is unlikely to happen), the only arguments which seem to gain any ground are "one or the other" arguments, and based on the previously given reasons, I think American English makes more sense among the two per the participation (not solely funding) argument. Dustin (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you've said that already. Repeatedly. I respectfully disagree. Again. nagualdesign 21:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I did not. As a matter of fact, with regard to a large portion of that, I only just brought much of that up. That entire "imagine that we had made it to 2015 without a dialect be favored" segment was completely new, and the part where I refer to a possible policy change was as well. I would suggest that you reread what I said. Dustin (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Dustin may I make a suggestion? Back off and let the RfC run its course. People who are commenting have read everyone you have said (and repeated) and formed their own opinions. There is no need to attack everyone who doesn't agree with you OK? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 22:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No. I did not just repeat what I said. If you seriously consider the comment I just made to be an attack, you probably would do well to learn what attack actually means. And no, I am afraid to say that if I feel that it is worth responding to a comment, I will respond. I don't want this to turn into a majoritarian, personal preference-driven "vote" which is what will probably happen if there are not any rebuttals by anyone. Dustin (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Completely against favoring one over the other. An article doesn't have to have consistent AmE or BrE spelling. Perhaps a paragraph should...and if there are a lot of discrepancies then I might understand an argument that an entire section should be consistent. Otherwise, who cares? Unless one country has an overwhelmingly predominant relationship with the article topic (and even then that should not automatically mean one spelling convention is used) there's no reason to chose one over the other...especially when the topic is international. Arguments about who the core readers are is ridiculous. Who on Earth would stop reading an article because a couple words are spelled slightly differently? Do we really care about a few indignant writers who refuse to keep writing because their tantrum over the spelling of a few words doesn't go their way? Unless there is a solid reason for changing it (the language is confusing, too colloquial, far too regional, very inconsistent in one section), leave the spelling as was written by the original contributor. Shabidoo | Talk 19:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Your second sentence is wrong. Please see WP:ARTCON. --Izno (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That is a manual of style. Not policy. Shabidoo | Talk 00:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but this Manual of Style is causing far more problems then it is alleviating. This article wouldn't be in British English (it would not favor any dialect!) if someone hadn't changed it with no consensus for no reason years ago. Look at how much disruption that user's actions have caused now... Dustin (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

If some new contributor undertakes a major overhaul of the article, say restoring it to featured status, and prefers American English, they could likely convert the whole article in the process and convince other readers and editors to be okay with the dialect shift. But if noone is working heavily on the article, I see no reason to change the article for the sake of changing this minor facet. – SJ + 20:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of close[edit]

The last thing I must say is that this very persistent argument of "retain the status quo" is not properly applicable as the very adoption of this dialect was done without consensus. If you reclose this, please do not make incorrect claims that there was consensus to use British English over other dialects. There was no consensus. There was never any consensus one way or another, and the original change to British English was done without justification or consensus. Had this unjustified change not taken place, the "RETAIN" argument would lose all weight. Dustin (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is, by now, moot, since the consensus to retain the current spelling is unambiguous. There is, in short, no evidence of any problem to be fixed: British readers have no trouble understanding American spelling, American readers have no trouble understanding British spelling. Look at IUPAC names for elements: aluminium (British) and sulfur (American) are entirely unproblematic. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where does station history go?[edit]

This section of text was formerly in the article lede, and was recently edited to simplify, etc., with some parts of this info removed from the article completely:

The Russian Federal Space Agency, Roskosmos (RKA) has proposed using the ISS to commission modules for a new space station, called OPSEK, before the remainder of the ISS is deorbited. The Russian ISS program head, Alexey B. Krasnov, said in July 2014 that "the Ukraine crisis is why Roscosmos has received no government approval to continue the station partnership beyond 2020."[1]However in February 2015 the Russian Space Agency endorsed the use of ISS until 2024.[2]


It seems fine to leave the full OPSEK discussion in the various parts of the article body (although I note that some of the statements there are totally unsourced). Also, the recently-announced Russian plans to stay with the ISS until 2024. However, it seems that the History of the Ukraine situation, and some of the geopolitical impact on ISS and NASA/Roscosmos and US/Russia relations over ISS, is being lost with the removal of some of the Ukraine-specific information, and the July 2014 quotation from Krasnov about the delays in gaining approval for the extension past 2020.

When I look for where this info might be kept, it seems that there is no History section in the article. Seems a bit odd. In any event, where should such notable history be kept? Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

N2e, erm, the material I removed already exists in very slightly different wording in the "End of mission" section. It discusses both OPSEK and the Ukraine factor there. Yes, a consolidated history section might be a good idea, though I'm concerned that this article is just so broad that such a section would be unwieldy and duplicative. Huntster (t @ c) 06:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't see that line in End of mission with Rogozin's statement. As you said, it is a big and unwieldy article. I just did a search on "Ukraine", and don't see the info about the explicit statement of Krasnov about the geopolitical situation in/over Ukraine delaying the Russian answer re longer-term ISS use in mid-2014. It seems to me that the specific historical statement that got removed on that by your recent edit of the lede, probably inadvertantly, seems a worthwhile part of ISS history to leave in the ISS history. That's all.
On having a History section in the article: I totally agree that the article is unwieldy as is, and not sure what might help get it cleaned up top to bottom: maybe a formal copyedit? But on balance, it seems that having an explicit History section might actually help, as some miscellaneous stuff strewn about the article might have a place to go. But I'm not married to that opinion. Just a thought. See what others think. N2e (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


So... for operations on the US-portion of the station, Japan 12.8%, ESA 8.3%, Canada 2.3%, USA 76.6% of the common operating charges. [3] ; I will note that Britain is not charged separately, but this article is written in British instead of Canadian or American. Seems like bias for a non-affiliated dialect instead of the major affiliation, and Britain specfically blocked funding human spaceflight during the construction of this space station [4] ; so seems to be the wrong dialect of English for this article to use, as it is a dialect of a nation that was antithetical to the development of this station instead of instrumental in its development. It is a an ANTI-TIES instead of MOS:TIES -- (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)