Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Rocketry (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
          This project collaborates with:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
NA Non-article pages do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Physics (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

    Panzerschreck[edit]

    WikiProject Rocketry,

    Article: Panzerschreck.

    Could someone assess the above article so it is one less article for us to worry about. It would certainly be appreciated if someone could take the time to do it. Everything is set up for assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

    Rocket engines[edit]

    Hi folks, just wondering if there's any guidelines from this project as to what format the articles concerning rocket engines should take? I've been having a go at sorting out Space Shuttle main engine and have reshuffled it into an organisational structure I think should do the job, but there are no high-quality rocket engine articles (that I can see) to compare it to, and I have been unable to find any project-specified guidelines - any help or suggestions would be appreciated! Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Unfortunatly the project isn't very active at the moment, I'm not sure if there is a standard. Perhaps WP:SPACEFLIGHT might be able to help? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks - I had a horrible feeling that might be the case, but decided to ask here first anyhow, mostly out of courtesy! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    Project abolishment?[edit]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The discussion reached no consensus as to what action should be taken. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

    Notified: WP:SPACEFLIGHT, WP:MILHIST & WP:AVIATION.

    There has been a discussion ongoing at WP:SPACEFLIGHT about this project, concerning its ongoing inactivity, with some editors proposing that the project be abolished and its functions split up between WP:SPACEFLIGHT (for launch vehicles and their engines, etc.), WP:MILHIST (for missiles, rocket pods etc.) and WP:AVIATION (aircraft rocket engines, etc.). This discussion is intended to illicit the opinions of editors from all four projects to determine whether consensus is indeed for the project to be abolished and, if so, how its duties should be divided up. Colds7ream (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

    I would prefer:
    • WPSpaceflight and WPRocketry merge to form a single "Spaceflight and Rocketry" project (this would basically be the existing Spaceflight project, but the name should reflect the inclusion of Rocketry, especially if aspects of Rocketry that are not directly relevant to spaceflight are included)
    • This combined project inherits all ballistic missiles, ASATs and ABMs, and sounding/research rockets, regardless of whether they are able to reach space or not (since the technology is identical)
    • Non-ballistic missiles (Air-to-air, surface-to-air, cruise, etc) would fall under WP:AVIATION
    • WP:MILHIST would be jointly responsible with Aviation/Spaceflight&Rocketry for military vehicles
    • Rocket engines would fall under the scope of Spaceflight & Rocketry if they are used on any rocket that is covered by that project (if not, they would fall under Aviation, but such engines probably wouldn't be notable anyway)
    • Launch sites would fall under Spaceflight & Rocketry, unless they have been used exclusively by non-ballistic missiles, in which case they would fall under MILHIST.
    --GW 17:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    But most rockets are military rockets that work in the atmosphere, and most of the rest are hobby rockets and toy rockets that also only function in the atmosphere, and not spaceflight material at all. So it should merge into WPAviation, if it were to merge as a whole anywhere. WPAVIATION would be the best place to host the naming convention as well. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The main concern I have is that WP:ROCKET has the only naming convention for missiles, rockets, etc. that I've been able to find (I could have sworn I saw one at MILHIST at one point but I can't for the life of me find it now). - The Bushranger One ping only 17:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
      That could easily be hosted by another project, such as the combined one, with some note stating that it applies to other classes of missile as well. --GW 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that a combined "Spaceflight & Rocketry" project would be a neat solution, with a few residual items &c going to aviation or milhist or whichever other project is the best fit. We don't have to worry too much about drawing precisely interlocking boundaries so that every item belongs to exactly one project, no more and no less.
    • Personally, I'm not too bothered about naming conventions; even if it were impossible for people in future to refer to the current one (it's hardly likely to vanish), a project can function perfectly well without its own formal rules on article titles - because we have sources, WP:COMMONNAME, and - in extremis - the application of common sense on project talkpages. bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The naming conventions issue is more to do with disambiguation than anything else - before we had a guideline there were about ten different types of disambiguation in use: Delta IV rocket, Vega (launcher), Soyuz launch vehicle, etc. All the guideline does is recommends standardisation, and it has been very effective. --GW 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Query: How long would it take to retarget all the templates, categories and so on currently pointing at Spaceflight to instead point to Spaceflight & Rocketry? Colds7ream (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    If we process the categories under CSD-C2D they should take 48 hours; since the changes would be discussed here I doubt if we'd need to go through a full CFD, but if we do then that's only about a week anyway. There aren't that many templates, changing the links should be about three minutes' work in AWB. Other links - on other project pages, talk pages, etc, wouldn't need changing because redirects would be left in place. That should also save us having to change links to the templates. --GW 21:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Most significant rockets are military rockets that function in the air, so merging to spaceflight is quite an unusual proposal. It would seem logical to merge it to WPAviation, rather than spaceflight. Since space rockets represent a very small part of rocketry, I don't see why Spaceflight is the place to merge things. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • They may be rockets, but it's not rocketry, which is what the project focusses on. It's never covered them in practise either, and as stated above, non-ballistic missiles would be transferred to Aviation under the proposal which would clarify their position. --GW 08:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Er, I'd hope non-ballistic missiles would be transferred to WP:MILHIST's Weaponry task force, as the Aviation WikiProject does not cover missiles (unless they are designated as missiles but are actually aircraft, like many U.S. UAVs were). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly - as I said originally, WP:SPACEFLIGHT can take launch vehicles & their engines, WP:MILHIST weapons such as missiles (whether ballistic or not) & rocket pods etc., and WP:AVIATION can take anything else that doesn't fit, like aircraft rocket engines. I still see no reason to merge Rocketry into Spaceflight, and would perfer it be split instead. If a launch vehicle is based on a ballistic missile, or the missile is exo-atmospheric (take the R-7, for instance), it can simply be placed under both SPACEFLIGHT and MILHIST. Colds7ream (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • That makes alot more sense than merging it into WPSpaceflight. (my response was to the suggestion that it should be merged to Spaceflight, which didn't make a whole lot of sense, considering where rockets usually end up in real life) Though WPTransport might work as a merge target, if this were to be merged whole, instead of being split. Being split makes more sense, then this project would become tagged as {{historical}}. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The technology used by orbital launch systems and ballistic missiles is in many areas identical, and in other areas almost identical, regardless of whether or not that missile has had a civilian application. Secondly, the proposal gives absolutely nowhere for scientific rockets with an apogee of less than 100 kilometres to go. Despite the fact they are in many cases virtually identical to rockets which fly high enough to qualify. We seem to be spreading the topic between too many projects. I am starting to have doubts about suggesting a merger - I intended it to result in a combined project which would do some of the tasks that this project never accomplished, however all I am seeing are attempts to asset-strip it. --GW 10:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The thing is, unless WP:SPACEFLIGHT makes an exemption, those sounding rockets don't have anywhere else to go - many of them are not military, and they're not aircraft...- The Bushranger One ping only 10:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • As sounding rockets are methods of transporting probes to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, you might be able to put it under WP:TRANSPORT. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

    • Just how many sounding rocket articles are we talking about here? Colds7ream (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
      I don't know how many actual articles exist, but according to Jonathan McDowell's website, there are somewhere on the order of 150 rockets, excluding missiles. I'm not sure that those figures include certain amateur rockets, or modern rockets with extremely low apogees, so they could be higher. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 11:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      In fact, for that matter, the entire field of amateur rocketry would be left homeless under the abolition proposal. This is why I proposed a merger rather than simply abolishing the project. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 11:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, whilst I can understand how spaceflight can take launch vehicles and even, to a lesser extent, sounding rockets, IMHO it has absolutely nothing to do with any of the others, whether weapons or models. To me, it's simply expanding the project's remit far too much. I'm sure one of the other projects can take them, and in any case, arguably, with an inactive project, all these articles are homeless anyway, so even absorbing some is improving the situation. SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about models - they're not notable enough to cover. There are some serious amateur groups around. With regards to weapons, as I have stated before, I think that all ballistic missiles should be kept together, and since most operate in space, merging to a combined spaceflight and rocketry project would make more sense than splitting two identical concepts just because some can fly a little higher. The same applies for sounding rockets, probably to a greater degree. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 14:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Operating in space or not, ballistic missiles, as ballistic missiles, have zero to do with spaceflight. Some, of course, got converted to launch vehicles, but in their ballistic missile role, putting them in WP:SPACFLIGHT would make no sense at all. Now, putting all sounding rockets in WP:SPACEFLIGHT would make sense. Perhaps WP:SPACEFLIGHT needs a "Rocketry Task Force"/"Launch Vehicle Task Force"? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Which is why I proposed a merger, not an abolition. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 19:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • If you merge it to WP:TRANSPORT it would make more sense, since rockets/rocketry is a transportation technology/science. Rockets transport warheads (in missiles, or artillery rockets), or other payloads. As for model rockets, there is WPP Toys. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    Rocketry is listed as a mode of transportation on WP:TRANSPORT's page, so the science and technology of rocketry is covered by WP:TRANSPORT. Anything that carries something from one place to another is wikt:transport; since wikt:transportation is what rockets do for the most part (transportation of stuff into orbit, of warheads from launcher to target), it doesn't seem to fail commonsense at all. Indeed, restricting it to rocket mail and Virgin Galactic seems to be restricting the definition of transport to an extreme. 70.24.244.248 (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    Model rocketry also does not belong in WP:Toys. At any level beyond the basic Estes kits - i.e, mid-power and high-power rocketry and into amateur rocketry - they are not toys and would be woefully inadequately placed there. WP Rocketry exists for a reason and it should continue to exist because rocketry articles are not served well elsewhere. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    It's not exactly been serving them well either, though, has it? --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 08:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well this seems a complex question, with a lot of arguments presented on the various outcomes of reorganizations that could be imagined. I'll give my thoughts on the major question, and the subquestion.

    On the major question of this section: abolishing the WikiProject Rocketry? Since the project has been nearly inactive, I would support either abolishment of the project, or some sort of hiatus status if that is a possible outcome for previously-active but now quiescent WikiProjects.

    On the sub-question of what to do with the articles, it appears quite messy. I mostly support the position of the anon poster on 17 Dec: "Most significant rockets are military rockets that function in the air, so merging to spaceflight is quite an unusual proposal. It would seem logical to merge it to WPAviation, rather than spaceflight. Since space rockets represent a very small part of rocketry, I don't see why Spaceflight is the place to merge things." Moreover, since the vast majority of rockets never see space, I really don't think it is a good idea to combine it with the WikiProject Spaceflight project. If the Aviation people don't want it, as it seems some do not, and if the Transport argument gains no traction, then another option is to take the bottom up approach: close down the project, and set a bot loose to remove the TalkPage WikiProject Rocketry tags, and then allow the order to re-establish itself over time as various projects take in the articles that relate their particular WikiProject, and leave out those that do not. Wikipedia will survive quite well. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

    I find some agreement with your thoughts. Military rockets have always fallen within the scope of WPMilhist, and rocket engines used to power aircraft have always fallen under WPAviation scope - and would continue to do so whether WP Rocketry continued or folded. A while ago in editing the Skylon article, I used an aviation template for laying out its specification because Skylon (if it ever takes off) would be flying for part of its journey, there will be overlap between some projects and thos projects that are interested in the articles will involve themselves with them, and for the same reason so will editors who are not part of projects. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not too keen on the idea of abolishing without replacement. A defunct project can at least provide some insight on past issues and has the possibility of being revived. Whilst that is far from ideal, it is still better than nothing. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 19:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    I hear you WDG. What if the project were left around, but just noting it's current status ("former", or "defunct" or "on hiatus" or etc.) and the bot that did the article TalkPage cleanup replaced the project link with a paragraph noting the current status and that some historical info might be available on the WikiProject Rocketry (defunct) project pages. While not ideal, it would state the truth of the current situation, and might encourage other (active) WikiProjects (e.g., Transport, or MilHist, or Aviation, or Spaceflight) to actually pick up the articles, over time, as each project sees that an article fits in, or doesn't. N2e (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK, so as the discussion seems to have stalled, I wonder if a bit of summing-up might be of use? As it stands, I believe we've had four options fielded, which could possibly be put to a !vote, IF we can get enough people to comment on it. The options are:

    1. Keep WPRocketry intact as-is and attempt to revive it.
    2. Split the project up between the aforementioned projects officially.
    3. Abolish the project altogether and allow its articles to be picked up naturally by other relevant projects.
    4. Have WPSpaceflight absorb WPRocketry.

    Personally, I'd put a !vote in for option 2, according to the options set out above. What's the general consensus? Should we put it to a !vote, or perhaps open up an official RfC? Opinions, please! SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

    Prefer Option 3, per rationale expressed in the discussion above. Definitely would support it being put up to a !vote. N2e (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I would support option 4 per my previous position, and I would be inclined to oppose options 2 and 3 strongly, as I believe splitting the article base would do far more harm than good and there are areas which no existing project could cover. I think that there are too many different options and opinions around at this time to go to a vote, we should try and see if there is room for compromise. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 21:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    Well now, all we've got here is three editors voting for their own suggestion, which is going to get us nowhere. We need more people involved in the discussion! Suggestions? SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd go for, in order of preference, [b]1, 3, 4, 2[/b]. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Support option 4. Maybe rename WP:Spaceflight to something more general that will cover Rocketry (WP:Space or other). -Fnlayson (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, the name in the original proposal was "WikiProject Spaceflight and Rocketry". --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 16:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose Option 4. Makes no sense, most rockets do not involve space or spaceflight launches, it would conflate two disparate topics. Prefer Option 2 or 3. This project can be marked as historical. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    "Rocketry" refers almost exclusively to space- and spaceflight-related rockets, though, in my experience. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
    Rocketry is the science, technology, and use of rockets, which is hardly space or spaceflight exclusive. And I've seen it refer to the military rockets that the British faced in India when they conquered it. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


    NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation[edit]

    Please see User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success, in the hope that such events will continue in the future. Day one is devoted to spaceflight, so this will directly affect y'all! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

    Rocket Nozzle Expansion Ratio vs Area Ratio[edit]

    Under the heading "RL10B-2" the "Expansion ratio: 250 to 1" has a link that take you to a cryogenic expansion discussion. The "Expansion ratio: 250 to 1" should be change to "Nozzle expansion ratio" as it is under the "Original RL10" section with no link to the cryogenic gas expansuon discussion. Also I believe the RL10B-2 Nozzle expansion ratio is 285 to 1. The actual ratio under discussion here is more properly shown as "Nozzle Area Ration" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.205.211.90 (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

    A sample expansion ratio calculation for a sea level solid propellant motor is conducted as follows. The nozzle throat diameter is measured accurately and the area is calculated using the formula pi*(R^2) or pi R squared. pi being 3.1415, R being the radius of the circular throat or half its diameter, and squared being a mathematical calculation of R*R. The input measurement is a distance, such as inches. The output is an area such as square inches. A typical expansion ratio for a rocket motor of any style near sea level +- 1500 feet altitude is 6.5. This is a coefficient or multiplier. The nozzle area times the expansion ratio is the exit area. The exit diameter is calculated from that resulting area as follows. ((at/3.1415)^0.5)*2 with at being the area of the throat, that is divided by pi, then you calculate the square root of the resulting value and multiply by 2. You end up with an exit area 6.5 times the throat area. That is the optimum expansion ratio for the altitude it is operated under. A typical expansion ratio for a rocket operated in space is 80 or more. That requires a very large expansion cone or bell, sometimes much larger than the rocket motor itself. The bell shape itself is more efficient than a cone by a small percentage. The typical exit angle for the expansion cone is 15 degrees included (side to side). [author: Jerry Irvine, U.S. Rockets]71.110.202.44 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC) 71.110.202.44 (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

    Ares and Challenger[edit]

    Several Ares and Challenger explosion images have been sent for deletion, see Category:All Wikipedia files with unknown source -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

    No-importance[edit]

    Please see the discussion here for regarding the use of No-importance or not. Thank for your time. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 19:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

    Arrow (missile)[edit]

    The usage of Arrow (missile) is under discussion, see Talk:Arrow (missile) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

    Chinese fire arrow.gif[edit]

    image:Chinese fire arrow.gif has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

    File:All PZT Mach effect thruster test unit.jpg[edit]

    File:All PZT Mach effect thruster test unit.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

    Template:Launching/Falcon[edit]

    Template:Launching/Falcon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for deletion. The issue brought up has applicability to all Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Launching templates -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

    Alfa (rocket)[edit]

    FYI, there's a notice at WT:MILHIST about this article -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

    Ion thruster[edit]

    In the second paragraph article: "Ion thrusters' exhaust velocity are often in the range of 15–50 kilometres per second (1,500–5,100 s), and will have a specific thrust usually below a newton per tonne. Thruster efficiency may reach 60–80%."

    But Input power: 1 to 7 kilowatts Exhaust velocity: 20 to 50 kilometers per second Thrust: 20 to 250 millinewtons Efficiency: 60 to 80 percent. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

    LR-87 rocket engine[edit]

    I need help at Talk:LR-87#Number of nozzles. TIA Andrewa (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

    Article naming[edit]

    The standard naming format for aircraft engines, both piston and jet, is "Manufacturer+Model". However, it appears that in most cases, for rocket engines is just "Model". Should rocket engines use the "Manufacturer+Model" naming format? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

    I'd be inclined to disagree. We don't follow aircraft conventions other aspects of rocketry and spaceflight, such as the names of the vehicles themselves: we use Delta IV, Minotaur I, H-IIA, Titan IV and Ariane 5 rather than United Launch Alliance Delta IV, Orbital Sciences Minotaur I, Mitsubishi H-IIA, Lockheed Martin SB-5A Titan IV and Airbus Ariane 5 which would be favoured by aircraft conventions. I would say formalising the convention of "Model", disambiguated with "(rocket engine)" for liquids and "(rocket motor)" for solids, would be the best way to go. --W. D. Graham 19:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Unfortunatly there are some who would scream loudly if, say, the de Havilland rocket engines (currently at manfuacturer+model) were renamed. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Though, to put into context, Sprite and Spectre (as well as Scorpion, Screamer, and Snarler) were only used as aircraft engines. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Point, but still, rockets. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    I'm agnostic on the matter, at least at the level I currently understand it. I'm not unwilling to take a more helpful position later on, I just don't presently see a significant reason to change so am neutral on the proposal. N2e (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

    Fremont Rocket[edit]

    FYI, there's a notice at WT:MILHIST about Fremont Rocket -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

    Talk:Space_Shuttle_main_engine#Requested_move3[edit]

    All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

    Leaflet for Wikiproject Rocketry at Wikimania 2014[edit]

    Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

    Hi all,

    My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

    One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

    This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

    • Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

    • Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

    • Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

    • Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

    • Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

    The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

    For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

    Project leaflets
    Adikhajuria (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)