Mars Science Laboratory is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
1. Is very likely that there will be many more images to come that can be added to Wikipedia because of the
public domain nature of the images created by NASA
2. This article will very likely grow to have hundreds if not thousands of images. Is there a way to split this article so it can have different sections that will make it easier to navigate and also much light on users with browsers and computers with sub average performance?
The potential exists, but I am mostly certain that none of the editors who are engaged in maintaining the article will allow more images than are generally advised, based upon the Wikipedia guidelines for image use and page size. You can achieve the results you are looking for by using the entry for the mobile Wikipedia site, which you may navigate by sections, without all images loading upon entry. You may also disable the display of images. For this article, you can try it out here: Mars Science Laboratory Mobile view. For other articles on Wikipedia, you can scroll down to the very bottom of the page quickly, bypassing the loading of images, and click on the link "mobile view" in the footer. Cheers. OliverTwisted(Talk)(Stuff) 07:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
As the mission progresses, most RELEVANT images may be incorporated into the Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission....after its issues are resolved. Having said that, Wikipedia is not an image repository and I seriously doubt you will be able to incorporate "hundreds if not thousands" of images into it. Besides, the most important information will be of chemical/environmental nature. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Last night when I checked this article out it was a mess, it turned out a user was editing it with TW, then user BatteryIncluded says that this article was split into 3 other articles, one of them being the timeline, I checked that out too and that article holds a big number of images (which is expected, especially with probably inexperienced and excited users willing to put whatever picture JPL publishes), that article seems to me is disorganized and a hot mess. I suggest you guys to take a look at that article and maybe we can improve it by following the formatting and style of similar articles (namely timeline of Opportunity rover for instance). So the article can be 1. Not too heavy for browsers with difficulty dealing with many images at once, 2. Easy to read. 3. Better structured. Thanks --Camilo SánchezTalk to me 17:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Camilo: sounds like you should start that discussion on the Timeline ... Talk page, not this Talk page.
It will be best if we can keep the discussion on this page—Talk:Mars Science Laboratory—to be discussions related to this article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The given number 36,210 km/h is less than the Earth escape speed ([]). The source says "the Centaur re-ignited as planned for a final eight-minute burn, accelerating the spacecraft to an Earth-escape velocity of 22,500 mph" without conversion to km/h, but the article Miles per hour says that "Nautical and aeronautical applications, however, favour the knot as a common unit of speed: one knot is one nautical mile per hour." 22,500 nautical miles per hour (41,670 km/h or 11.575 km/s) looks more suitable for Mars transfer orbit speed. Should this be corrected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Editors can provide a correction as long as they can cite a published reliable source to the specific point, as per the MOS; otherwise such changes would constitute original research. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Although the USA aeronautic industry favors the use of "nautical" miles and knots, the source and the general public relate to common units of measure, such as miles per hour and km/h. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The source cited in the article has no km/h, it has 'Earth-escape velocity of 22,500 mph', but 22,500 statute miles per hour is significantly less than the Earth-escape velocity. 22,500 nautical miles per hour (knots) is enough for the inter-planetary cruise speed. The calculation from [] suggests that the departure speed was 11.490km/s, or 22,335 knots, but 25,708 statute miles per hour. May be it would be better just to remove "36,210 km/h", which doesn't exist in the source and causes the confusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
You are correct: the source cited in that section of the article merely states "...accelerating the spacecraft to an Earth-escape velocity of 22,500 mph. ..." There is nothing in that article on Spaceflight Now to indicate that the speed is not in miles, but is is "knots" or "nautical miles per hour." Moreover, in spaceflight articles, which have left the terrestrial frame of reference for which knots and nautical miles were first use, we generally see only SI units (km/h, km/s, m/s, etc.) used, or we see the conventional English units of miles per hour, feet per second, etc.
At the end of the day, without a source that has a different number, it is exactly correct for this Wikipedia article, which is written for an international audience, to have both km/h (and mph, parenthetically) given, and to utilize the number from the cited source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and restored the image, after removing the credit line. The title in the image should not be removed, as it is a part of the image itself. — Huntster (t@c) 02:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@Huntster - Thank you *very much* for your help with the image - it's *greatly* appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I removed it due to the aptly named WP:WATERMARK, which states "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use" - the current version, with just the title, is OK. I would say, however, that I don't recall seeing any other photographic image with an in-built title... Not to say it's against any policy (that I can find), but does look wrong to me . Nikthestunned 08:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Nik, but how does it look wrong? I take your word for it, of course, but I genuinely don't understand. — Huntster (t@c) 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedic article about an in-depth scientific topic, and right at the end we appear to have the work of an unconnected artist who has modified the images released by NASA - where is the value in including it?
It "looks" wrong as I've never seen this elsewhere - at least not in a well developed article. The picture itself is 100% fine - why have the title and border? What encyclopaedic value do these add? There is no reason, other than that the artist who made it wanted them there - they add no value, only confusion to some (like me). (Incidentally, if I took one of my images and added a 500px border & title for no reason, I guarantee it would be reverted!)Nikthestunned 11:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments - for my part (fwiw & atm) I'm flexible with this - removing the title/border (or not) is *entirely* ok with me - in any case - thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Nik, I appreciate the reply. I understand the sentiment, and frankly don't care all that much about the issue. I would like to see some additional opinions before removing it, though. — Huntster (t@c) 00:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)