Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:33, 1 December 2010

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

WikiProjects and collaborations

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the role of WikiProject Space, and how can the project be reformed or redefined in order to serve its purposes? What role should it have, if any, with regards to the coordination of child WikiProjects? Is there any need for this project's continued existence, or should it be abolished in favour of the child projects? Can any improvements be made to the structuring of the child projects? Can activity within the child projects be improved? --22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to clarify that in spite of the canvassing on the astronomical objects talk page this is not a top-down proposal to "abolish" the child projects. The two proposals put up on the Space discussion page were just two ideas for how a restructuring could be achieved, and not exhaustive options. Since WPSpace is the central coordinating project, it was the most logical place to hold the discussion and should have encouraged contribution from both sides of the project. Due to the opposition from members of the astronomical objects project to having this discussed on that page, I have posted this RFC on a subpage in the WPSpace project space, in the same manner as the last reorganisation. --G W… 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial discussion at WT:SPACE

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

During some discussions on several of the child project talk pages, the role of this project has been called into question. It appears the WP:SPACE is not currently doing anything, and that all work is being done by the lower projects, such as WP:ASTRO and WP:SPACEFLIGHT. Two remedies have been suggested for the situation so far:

Centralising the entire project by upmerging all child projects to become task forces of one monolithic project with an organisational structure similar to WP:MILHIST, which is one of the most successful projects.
Splitting the astronomy and spaceflight sides of the project, and abolishing WP:SPACE.

I feel that it would be a good idea to start a discussion here in order to try and establish a consensus on what action if any should be taken. Can anyone offer any input? --G W… 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support option 1. I think WP:Space could be as good (and maybe better) then WP:MillHist. So put one !Vote for option 1.--NavyBlue84 21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, for sure. Astro, Spaceflight and others can be Task Forces a la Milhist. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 definitely. Astronomy is a science wikiproject, WPSpace is nothing of the sort. If anything, Astronomy can be placed under WPPhysics better than under WPSpace. Whether or not WPSpace is abolished, I care not, but merging Astronomy tightly would be very bad. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that if MILHIST can combine histories of battles & wars, biographies of the people involved and articles about the machines used to carry them out, we can safely combine articles about stars, planets and the means of getting to them rather well. I'd suggest three task forces for WPSpace; Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight, each operating its own portal (with the abolishment of the Space portal). Colds7ream (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under option 1, I would favour putting Solar System under Astronomical Objects, which could either be brought to the same level as astronomy and spaceflight, or kept under astronomy. Astronomy should keep constellations, some of the current third level projects and task forces could become working groups. --G W /P… 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain to me the distinction between Astronomy and Astronomical objects, because they seem practically synonymous to me. I would have thought that having three taskforces, one for everything within the Solar System, one for everything beyond the Solar System and one for the methods of reaching said places would be the best option? Colds7ream (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what they're actually doing (I'm not very active on the WP:ASTRO side of the project), but I would have seen astronomy dealing more with the abstract concepts, observations and people, whilst AO deals with the objects themselves. I don't see the point in distinguishing between objects inside and outside the solar system. Objects in the solar system are still astronomical objects, and therefore it would make sense if the same project/task force dealt with them. --G W /P… 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable; my suggestion was merely to assist in dividing the labour, but if people are happy splitting it that way, that works for me. Colds7ream (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy is already well managed, there is no point in keeping it under WPSpace. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy is divided similarly to WPAviation, which has WPAircraft as a subproject, so Astronomy has Astronomical objects to deal with various celestial bodies and classes of celestial bodies; as WPAircraft deals with aircraft, aircraft models, aircraft classes, but not aerodynamics. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get some WP:Astronomy members involved here to see what they think? It seems to be a bit pretentious of us spaceflight folks to dictate what the astronomy editors should be doing. Can I also please just clarify that I haven't decided my position on this either way yet (i.e. option 1 or 2). Colds7ream (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I was hoping they'd have taken an interest by now. Do you have any objections to me starting an RFC and mass-messaging everyone involved? --G W… 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so can it emphasise the fact this is at a very preliminary stage? Although I did post messages on Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight linking to this page the present discussion has rubbed some editors up the wrong way, [1]. I don't think it helps suggesting that this is yet an "either or" between Option 1 and Option 2 or that this is a decision to made just by WP:Space. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of launching an RfC myself actually, GW, so feel free to go ahead as far as I'm concerned. I agree with ChiZeroOne though, we need to make sure everyone's on the same page with this to prevent any ugly business, as we really don't want any more of that having experienced it so recently. Colds7ream (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly attentive to the goings on at WP:Astronomy, though I don't make edits constantly. I had no idea until this discussion started that WP:Astronomy was a part of WP:Space, mainly because there is not much on the project page that merits attention, so I only saw now there is a box on the WP:Astronomy page that has WP:Space as the heading. This is perhaps a long winded way of saying that from my perspective, WP:Space has not served any important purpose, and it does not seem that WP:Astronomy would lose anything by being separated from WP:Space. Everything that happens pretty much happens on the talk page for the project.

All of that said, if someone wants to start organizing concerted efforts project wide under the heading of Space, I might support some sort of variation of Option 1. I think I'd like to hear more concrete details than "make it like WP:MILHIST" though first. Otherwise, my preference would be to split WP:Astronomy from WP:Space. James McBride (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Option 2 at the moment. The Spaceflight and Astronomy sides appear de facto separate right now anyway. Of course, if there were interest from the Astronomy side to merge into a bigger project, I would support that; but I haven't really heard much interest in this direction. A related issue is whether it is beneficial to merge all (5?) of the Spaceflight WikiProjects into one, and rename the child projects as Task Forces. As the WikiProject Council points out, this is a way to reduce the bureacratic overhead associated with a WikiProject. Currently these wikiprojects are acting similarly to Task Forces anyway. So I would support the move to unify the Spaceflight WikiProjects, but to keep Astronomy separate. Mlm42 (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out we don't necessarily need to have like-for-like taskforces and the new Spaceflight project could easily create new ones like “NASA”, for example. We can also implement new ideas like some of those already hinted at from Milhist. But yes I suggest we have a poll of Spaceflight/daughter members about this once the issue of what will happen to Space has been sorted out. Wouldn’t be surprised if this goes the same way as the portal merge. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of this project, but I am a member of both Astronomy projects. I'd have to say I am strongly opposed to option 1. I believe you'll need the consensus of both those WikiProjects to pull it off, and that seems very unlikely.—RJH (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, discussion was relocated to this page. --G W… 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current structure

Space (WP:SPACE)	Astronomy (WP:AST)	Astronomical Objects (WP:ASTRO)
		Constellations^TF (WP:CTF)
	Solar System (WP:SOLAR)	Mars (WP:MARS)
		Moon (WP:MOON)
	Spaceflight (WP:SPACEFLIGHT)	Space Colonization (WP:SPACECOL)
		Human Spaceflight (WP:HSF)
		Timeline of Spaceflight (WP:TLS)
		Unmanned Spaceflight (WP:USPACE)
	Collaboration

RFC

I have opened an RFC to try and get more input on the situation, hopefully more of the astronomy editors will be able to contribute, and I'm yet to see anything from the Solar System projects. --G W… 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth considering the approach taken in the UK by the Science and Technology Facilities Council and UK Space Agency (a US version would be NASA vs. National Science Foundation.) - the two clearly separate the technical and human aspects of space from the understanding of the universe. As a specific example, man treading on the moon has little in connection with observing the earliest light in the universe apart from them both involving rockets. From a blank slate perspective, I would suggest having one project focused on spaceflight (with a clear link to an engineering project), and a separate one involved with astronomy/astrophysics (with a clear link to a physics project). Mike Peel (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. I don't think they should be merged. They seem to be functioning just fine. A move of projects could only create problems. atomic 77 32 03:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel this may be a good time to present the current results of my efforts to discover the number of active spaceflight editors. As of 29 November 2010, the member lists stand at:

WP Spaceflight - 5 active of 67 total (after 6 days)
WP Human spaceflight - 15 active of 58 total (after 12 days)
WP Unmanned spaceflight - 6 active of 15 total (after 14 days)
WP Space colonisation - 2 active of 35 total (after 8 days)
WP Timeline of spaceflight - 7 active of 16 total (after 9 days)

Personally, I think this underscores the need for merging - these numbers are insufficient to operate this many projects, especially considering that they represent only 24 unique users. Colds7ream (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think having 24 unique active users isn't too bad; so I don't think this shows a need to merge with WP Astronomy, which I believe is the question at hand. Mlm42 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that merging those five mentioned into a WP:SPACEFLIGHT would be the best way to go, with WP:ASTRO left as-is, then?—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Bushranger (talk • contribs) 16:56, 29 November 2010

Although membership numbers is an issue I don't think it's the main one with the present set-up regarding Spaceflight but simply the fact that there is unnecessary conflict in the way it's presently organised. There is large membership overlap and the position of Spaceflight is similar to Space at the moment with all the work passed down to daughters but in this case we have the bizarre situation that the scope of Spaceflight includes that of all it's daughters. They already are effectively taskforces but with none of the benefits of that structure in reducing competition and pooling resources. I don't see this whole process as overcoming problems of lack of membership but more about how we can improve these projects to stimulate collaboration on space-related articles. Once we sort that out, retaining members will be easier anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of merging and reorganization of these spaceflight subgroupings does sound like a good idea to me at the moment. I personally would like to see human expansion off the Earth (however labeled) as one major pillar. Then the automated and utilitarian side is hugely important, economically (communications, Earth observations, weather, GPS,...), scientifically (space physics, planetology and Solar System exploration), politically and militarily. And then of course the whole enabling technology and engineering end is vast. But it seems to me that we probably need to settle the option1/option2 question of unification or separation of Space and Astronomy (in favor of option2, separation, I hope) before tackling the next level.Wwheaton (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. If WP:SPACE isn't doing anything, it needs to be abolished. I think merging WP:ASTRONOMY and WP:SPACEFLIGHT would be bureaucratically too difficult, so it's better to keep them separate. There's also a big difference in that other is a science topic, while the other is mostly an engineering topic. Offliner (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't doing anything at the moment, but that doesn't necessarily mean that abolition is the only way to resolve this, another option would be to make it do something. --G W /P… 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In broad terms, option 2 seems a pretty good idea to me - amalgamate all the "throwing things into space" projects, but keep the "astronomy" side separate. The overlap (mostly some planetary-sciences material & astronomical satellites) can easily be tagged for both projects. Shimgray | talk | 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. WPAstronomy is clearly active and well managed, with large active memebership, and clearly defined. Whatever stress WPSpace might be under, should not be used to infect Astronomy just to try to clean it up. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. There certainly does not seem to be much support at WP:ASTRO for a merged wikiproject, and dead silence at WP:AST doesn't seem to be a ringing endorsement either (especially since a proposal to merge WP:AST and WP:ASTRO had already been declined). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, under option 1, AST and ASTRO would remain as independent of each other as they are now, but become task forces of WPSpace rather than projects in their own right. --G W… 12:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - merge the Space flight related articles, (as they are all human related), and posssibly make Astronomy a sub-project of PhysicsPetebutt (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. I am pretty firmly of the opinion that the Astronomy and Space projects should remain separated. Obviously they have strong connections, with space technology enabling a large and growing part of modern astronomical research. Still, astronomy as the basic science of understanding the Universe -- the Stage on which "we live, move, and have our being" -- goes back thousands of years, and is an essential part of human culture, with deep and important links to physics, philosophy, and religion. It is also big: bigger than our physically explored space: in volume, by a factor of 10³⁰ at least (and that is not likely to change much for many centuries), and also vastly bigger in the time dimension. I am convinced that human expansion off the Earth and into space is almost perfectly analogous to the movement of life from the sea onto the land, and that is of course huge and tremendously significant too, but it is very different from astronomy. (It may actually be more deeply related to biology?) It seems to me that neither Astronomy nor Space are proper subsets of any larger, super-category (except perhaps Human Cultural Activities), and I think it is probably unhelpful in practice to try to force them into some common conceptual box. I wonder if some kind of cross-disciplinary connection might be formalized. (How has Wikipedia handled this sort of situation in other areas of arts and sciences?) It might be nice to have a way that the two projects can communicate, "honor and bow to one another" as it were, and coordinate. Yet I oppose a shotgun marriage at this point; I fear we would create a weird hybrid monstrosity. Revisit the issue in a century or two, I think! Wwheaton (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wwheaton, remember that option 2 is to separate WP:Astronomy and WP:Spaceflight, which would be achieved by desolving WP:Space. Mlm42 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment grades for Spaceflight and Unmanned Spaceflight

The Spaceflight and Unmanned Spaceflight projects are both still using the "standard" assessment scale, whilst all other projects that assess are using the "extended" scale. This is causing conflicts in the unified template which are causing the miscategorisation of some articles. The only real difference between the systems is that the extended scale subcategorises non-article pages, whilst the standard scale lists them all as "N/A". I would like to propose that the scale be standardised, and Spaceflight and Unmanned Spaceflight adopt the same scale as the rest of the projects (i.e. the extended scale). --G W /P… 17:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems like a good idea to me. Colds7ream (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - ditto. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Having the same scales across all projects is a good idea.--NavyBlue84 01:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar System

In the event that the projects are split, I would like to suggest that the Solar System project should remain with the astronomy projects, possibly as a child of Astronomical Objects. It is currently a direct child of WPSpace, which would result in it becoming completely independent in the event of a split. I think it would be more logical to keep planets and astronomy together. --G W… 13:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this, and would also suggest that the Moon and Mars projects be merged into Solar System, as they seem a) inactive and b) totally unnecessary. Colds7ream (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Astronomy listing at the Directory of WikiProjects already has Solar System as a child of Astronomy, it looks like; it also lists WP Mars and Moon as inactive, as Colds7ream pointed out. I guess the main change here would be adding the Solar System project to the banner {{WikiProject Astronomy}} (which seems like a good move to me). But broadly speaking, I think these changes and/or decisions should be made by WP Astronomy and Solar System, and could be made after the decision to desolve WP:Space is finalized (which is looking more and more likely). Mlm42 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be logical to discuss this change now since the organisation of all the projects is up in the air. That said, such a discussion must include Solar System members, so if necessary, we should mass-message all the relevant members to make sure they are aware the discussion is going on. --G W… 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These boundaries seem inevitably vague. I think much of what has traditionally been called "Space physics", "Space science", "Solar-terrestrial physics", etc -- that is, things with immediate relevance to the local terrestrial environment and near-Earth applications -- might stay on the Space side. Perhaps the line between Space and Astronomy should be defined pragmatically, in terms of the (moving, cis/trans) limit inside which we are practically and economically involved now or in the arguably near future, and beyond which our interest is mainly driven by scientific knowledge and exploration goals. In the same spirit, I think we might consider keeping the Moon and Near-Earth objects on the Space side (we do have redirects to route readers smoothly across such boundaries). Mars? I dunno, I'd probably say Space, as it is becoming of practical interest. But both astronomy editors and space editors are clearly going to be very interested in it. Maybe just accept that some articles have to be shared between the two sides. We don't need to be too dogmatically consistent. Wwheaton (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "option 2" goes through, then there would be no "space side". They would have to be categorised as either spaceflight or astronomy, and I would say that astronomy would be closer. I would support a joint "space exploration" task force between Spaceflight, Astronomy and possibly Solar System to cover the overlap if the projects are split. --G W… 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GW, such a joint task force sounds like a good idea. Mlm42 (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Moon and Mars be merged into Solar System as task forces; Solar System can remain independant... I see it as a "regional project" like WPEurope or WPCaribbean, which is not a geography project. It covers a region. Spaceflight and space exploration all occur within the Solar System, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future, but such missions that extend beyond Earth orbit would be tagged with WPSS (Moon for lunar, Mars for martian). Just as an article on the geology of Scandinavia would be tagged with WPEurope and WPGeology, this would tag spaceflight articles with the region of the spaceflight. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be useful to add TFs for the Sun and Earth as well... (Earth for Earth orbit, or ground based space exploration (ie. Mars habitat in the arctic or Utah) or underwater space training) 76.66.202.72 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 :::GW, such a joint task force sounds like a good idea. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 :I suggest that Moon and Mars be merged into Solar System as task forces; Solar System can remain independant... I see it as a "regional project" like WPEurope or WPCaribbean, which is not a geography project. It covers a region. Spaceflight and space exploration all occur within the Solar System, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future, but such missions that extend beyond Earth orbit would be tagged with WPSS (Moon for lunar, Mars for martian). Just as an article on the geology of Scandinavia would be tagged with WPEurope and WPGeology, this would tag spaceflight articles with the region of the spaceflight. [[Special:Contributions/76.66.202.72|76.66.202.72]] ([[User talk:76.66.202.72|talk]]) 05:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
+::It might be useful to add TFs for the Sun and Earth as well... (Earth for Earth orbit, or ground based space exploration (ie. Mars habitat in the arctic or Utah) or underwater space training) [[Special:Contributions/76.66.202.72|76.66.202.72]] ([[User talk:76.66.202.72|talk]]) 05:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)