User talk:SpaceHistory101

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, SpaceHistory101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft, not capsule?[edit]

Just wondering why you are making those changes. For Apollo it was only the capsule that returned to earth, not the entire spacecraft. The LEM and Service Module are also spacecraft but their locations are not described; only the command module aka capsule. So isn't "Capsule Location" more accurate and precise? ScottJ (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scott, Happy to explain. "Capsule" was a term used around 1959 by non-pilots, that many of the astronauts (trained test pilots) found (and still find) derogatory. It suggests they were passively sealed up inside something, instead of flying a vehicle as active pilots. "Capsule" is therefore a word generally avoided in space history so as not to unnecessarily denigrate the accomplishments of the pilots. "Spacecraft" is more appropriate, as it sounds more accurately like a vehicle that can be flown.

Please note also, on a number of Apollo pages the location of the discarded LM is in fact described.

I would respectfully disagree with the service module being called a "spacecraft" as it could not operate independently and its only function was to support the CM in its duties. It was a "module."

Hope this explains, and happy to discuss further if you wish. Thank you.SpaceHistory101 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But "capsule" was also the standard term used in some contemporary NASA documents. For example, NASA's "The Mercury-Redstone Project", a detailed technical description of that program, usually uses the term "capsule" when referring to the Mercury spacecraft, though "spacecraft" is sometimes used. This came to my attention when I saw that you recently made a wholesale change from "capsule" to "spacecraft" in the Mercury-Redstone 4 article. Sorry to say I disagree. While the astronauts might have found "capsule" derogatory (epithets like "spam in a can" didn't help), it was a standard term within Project Mercury, and I don't think it's our place to second-guess standard terminology like that. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Colin, for your response, and there is certainly room for debate. I refer you to my initial response, to Scott, of 7 February. The term was certainly in wide use in 1959. That does not mean that we should use it widely in a 2009 description of program details. Wikipedia is, as I understand, designed to give an encyclopedic overview for readers today, not to unhesitatingly reflect terminology of the time. Especially, as you agree, many linked these words to a "spam in a can" mindset, which is misleading when looking at the program's achievements. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After some more thought, I see your viewpoint a bit better, and I'm starting to make use of the term "spacecraft" where it isn't ambiguous and doesn't interfere with standard phrases (such as "capsule communicator"). I do tend to use "capsule" when I want to clearly distinguish the craft from the booster, though. In some contexts, readers without previous knowledge might easily confuse "spacecraft" to mean the entire combination of the Mercury craft with its booster, but they are unlikely to make that mistake when the words "capsule" and "booster" are used. (The term "booster" needs to be wikilinked for such readers, of course.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin - I agree, anywhere where it might be confused with the spacecraft / booster combo, it should not be used. And I've tried to be careful not to amend places where CapCom is used, as that is indeed the standard phrase. Thanks. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: First person on the moon / 24 people to the Moon[edit]

Hi - sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I had more posts to my talk page than usual and I thought I'd answered them all. Obviously I hadn't! Anyway, yes, I'd be glad to keep an eye on the Stuart Roosa article - I've watchlisted it just now. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - I appear to have calmed them with a compromise sentence, but you never know...! I appreciate your help. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring with the unregistered editor using IPs 130.18.232.172 (talk · contribs), 130.18.232.132 (talk · contribs), etc. regarding the use of "men" vs. "people" for the astronauts who have landed on the moon. Wikipedia works at its best when individuals with different views come together in order to build consensus. Discuss the issue on a talk page somewhere as continuing to revert each other may result in people being blocked for disruptive editing. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted to, but the person is unregistered, appearing to use different unregistered addresses from the same place, and my attempts to discuss have been met with "you don't own Wikipedia." I am unsure how to proceed other than to request you semi-protect the pages in question. I'm also happy to accept a third-party decision. Rather than warring, I believe I've been attempting to protect the pages from becoming less accurate - apologies if I have been doing so in the wrong way. Happy to hear any advice - thank you. (Incidentally, the amendments have not just been for the 12 who landed on the moon, but to all 24 who visited the moon). SpaceHistory101 (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried bringing the topic up at WT:SPACE? If you were, and if the phrasing you have suggested gains consensus, then whenever our Mississippi State University friend starts reverting things back to his or her own preferred version, then the IP could be warned and blocked as necessary for POV pushing. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much - I will do just that. Much appreciated. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are now doing it with a different IP, 130.18.233.194, also registered to Mississippi State University. I second the request to protect all 24 of these pages from this vandalism. They don't appear to want to talk about it, only to continue to log in with different IPs from the same facility. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching and fixing the men/people thing on the James Irwin article. I apparently missed this revert after my revert but before the protection last month. (How embarrassing!) — Kralizec! (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I can't help with Aurora 7 logo.[edit]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've answered your request on my talk page, but just to repeat it here, I'm afraid I can't help you with the Aurora 7 logo problem, at least not at present, since I don't really know anything about that mission. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Colin - hopefully, someone out there does... SpaceHistory101 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has now been corrected. Thank you! SpaceHistory101 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Rock[edit]

Thanks for correcting about the Apollo 15 Geneis Rock replica. I didn't take time to read the sign so I didn't know it was a replica. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space Camp Hall of Fame[edit]

Thanks for the prodding to finally update the Hall of Fame information. I've added a section to the United States Space Camp article. Should probably make this a separate article eventually as the list will grow. Crkey (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that was helpful to you: I look forward to seeing the results as it grows. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Booster" vs. launch vehicle[edit]

Hello. I came across your exellent discussion of the choice of using "capsule" vs. "spacecraft" above, and I believe we have a similar controversy about some uses of the word booster. I agree with the point you made that the Wikipedia should put things in modern terms, and we shouldn't necessarily make blanket use of the old terms. I started a discussion of this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I referenced your discussion. If you have any thoughts about booster, maybe you'd like to weigh in there? Thanks. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question - an interesting one, in that "booster" was used by the pilots who liked to think of themselves as pilots rather than more passive rocket-riders. More of a background culture thing. I'll have a look at the conversation and see - thanks for bringing it to my attention! SpaceHistory101 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]