{{talkback|User talk:Colds7ream/List of space stations|ts=17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)}}
{{talkback|User talk:Colds7ream/List of space stations|ts=17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)}}
== Posting Photos==
Hey, sorry I havent communicated with you about the Spectrum Auction project. Currently, we have an assignment where we have to do random edits on other wiki pages. I chose to update some things about the cast of The Cosby Show but I cant figure out how to add a picture to the biography section (the long box on the right hand side of the pages). I saw the code from the page on the actual show but I dont know how to get the photos to show up on the page Im doing. I would appreciate any help, thanks.
Letia Armstead
== Advice On Undoing an Edit ==
== Advice On Undoing an Edit ==
Revision as of 16:03, 27 March 2011
If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there.
A particularly concise and cogent explanation of specific impulse
The following is a comment left in October 2010 on the Talk:Rocket propellant Talk page. I thought it particularly good, and will leave it here in the comments for others to see. Clear, concise, cogent and very helpful to the lay person in getting over the "why is ISP measured in units of seconds" question. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specific impulse is the average exhaust velocity divided by the acceleration of gravity, taken to be 9.80665 meters/sec/sec (approximately 32.174 ft/sec/sec). From Newton's Second Law, the thrust of a rocket engine equals the mass flow rate times the average exhaust velocity. Hence, average exhaust velocity is a measure of rocket engine performance. Typical average exhaust velocities range from about 800 m/sec for black powder rockets to 4565 m/sec for the highest performing oxygen/hydrogen rocket engines. (Electric thrusters have much higher exhaust velocities.) In English speaking countries it is customary to describe flow rates in pounds/second, but pounds are units of force, not of mass. The unit of mass is the slug, which actually weighs 32.174 pounds. To convert pounds/second to slugs/second, one must divide by the acceleration of gravity, 32.174 ft/sec/sec. That is how the custom arose of describing rocket engine performance in terms of "specific impulse" which is the average exhaust velocity divided by "g" (9.80665 m/s/s or 32.174 ft/s/s). To convert specific impulse back to average exhaust velocity, simply multiply by the acceleration of gravity. Magneticlifeform (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not even interesting as history (dividing by g to get convert imperial unit to mass). It's worse than wrong. First, I don't see anything "cogent" in introducing arcane stuff like slugs in the lede, when you're right in the middle of explaining something else. Moreover, I think the explanation above is physically wrong, inasmuch as it tries to "explain" the need to divide by g to get units of force (thrust) from "mass flow" * "exhaust velocity". The latter is m/t * v = mv/t, but that does indeed give units of thrust = force. HOWEVER, specific impulse is not thrust and it never has force units. So, all this is more complicated, and bad physics AS WELL.
Dimensionally, specific impulse (Isp) is presented in two different basic dimensional forms: as momentum/mass = velocity, AND as momentum/weight = mv/mg = v/g = time. This is independent of whether SI or Imperial units are used. The "explanation" of needing to divide by a weight, works to explain the "time unit" specific impulse (Isp in sec), but not for the "velocity unit" specific impulse (Isp in ft/sec or m/sec or whatever velocity units you like). SBHarris18:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hi N2e; I noticed you recently added a citation needed tag for a statement about the origins of the X-33. This statement was easily found in one of the external links; even easier if you use google. As a regular to spaceflight articles, I assume you know NASA provides pretty much all of its documents online, so my question is, why didn't you simply add the reference yourself? Mlm42 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a much fuller summary of my thoughts on this topic here, in a discussion that you have personally weighed in on. See "the end of the matter" subsection for the summary. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone agrees we need more references (see Category:Wikipedia backlog). But ask yourself, are you adding the citation needed tags for the readers or for other editors? When readers see a "citation needed" tag, it makes them think that somebody, somewhere genuinely has a reason to doubt this statement. Indeed, the guideline WP:NOCITE suggests we tag statements which are "doubtful". If there are generally problems regarding lack of inline citations, then just add {{More footnotes}} to the section, or article, and add the citation needed tags to particularly doubtful statements. If I understand your position correctly, your motivation for adding the citation needed tags is to get other editors to act, rather than to bring doubt into the reader's mind. Is that right?
No, that is not my position. Other editors might cite it, or they might not. I'm agnostic on whether that happens or doesn't. And I don't force other editors to work on any particular thing with the time they donate to Wikipedia. See the "end of the matter" I previously referred you to and search for "In my view, Wikipedia is improved in one of two ways" I don't really have any motivation to discuss it much more deeply than that right now. N2e (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose an editor would be within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia if they added {{cn}} to every single unsourced sentence, regardless of whether the editor genuinely doubted the sentence.. but this doesn't seem very helpful to readers or other editors. I think it would be better to use {{More footnotes}}, or bring up issues on the talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your preference. But it has been my experience that most editors, on most articles in Wikipedia, will not support part two of the "two ways" forward without the more specific {{citation needed}} tags on specific claims. N2e (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so you're adding the tag for the editors, not for the readers. I'm just saying it's better to add tags like this to article space only if you think the reader should see them. One of the reasons editors react, is because they don't want the reader to be faced with a citation needed tag unnecessarily; in other words, you're kicking (knowingly or not) other editors into action. Which is fine, you're within your rights to do it if you want, I'm just saying that one reason people are objecting to these actions sometimes, is because they seem unfriendly. Mlm42 (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be best if folks assumed good faith, but humans are humans and will take things that are article-improvement related as "unfriendly" to some or the other particular editor. I guess if the authors who first added the claimsjust ensured they were sourced, there would be a lot less need for identifying the unsourced assertions and then patiently allowing a lot of time to pass to see if anyone wants to source the claims. But do note however, if there is some article you are working on, and you would prefer that I remove some of the individual requested cite tags that I added and replace them with a more general section-level or article-level tag, and then you would go forward citing the most important claims that in your view, as one of the authors, would most make the article better, just ask on my Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.
Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!
Hey there. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).
I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hello, I have updated the Project Page you are mentoring on with usernames for all the students in your Area of Study. Please send them a message introducing yourself and let them know you are there to help.
You are quite welcome. That was a great piece of work to help out Wikipedia! Any kudos you receive are well deserved. N2e (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As part of this course, I had hoped to work on an article related to technology and development. Specifically, I hoped to include information related to the concepts behind the Design for the Other 90% exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. I was thinking of either editing the Appropriate Technology article (specifically the [technology in developing areas] section) to include more information on design, appropriate technology, and development or creating a new article for this information.
I would appreciate any advice related to this plan, in particular your thoughts on editing the existing article to expand the section on appropriate technology in developing areas or beginning a new article. I find the appropriate technology article to be a little overwhelming, probably due to the poor organization and the almost "dump" of information.
Sure, I would be glad to be your mentor on your project. I am uncertain how much help I will be with the content of your work, but will definitely agree to assist you in your project if you want me to be your mentor, majoring on the Wikipedia side of things, and perhaps offering you a useful "big picture" perspective on how any good Wikipedia article emerges. Having said that, I do have some personal background with understanding, and implementing, appropriate technology (for a U.S. "developed nation" situation -- more about that later if you are interested) and have read a bit on AT more broadly (although that was quite some time ago), so I would imagine I might provide some assistance on the content as well. I will look more carefully at your specific early requests, and read the pages about your WikiProject, course, and the existing Appropriate Technology article tomorrow morning. Take a look at my User page to learn a bit more about me, and let me know explicitly if you want to go ahead with me as your mentor. Cheers. N2e (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, we are good to go. I've added you to my [list] and am now full. I will comment on your specific early questions later this morning. N2e (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!
This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:
Add {{WAP assignment | term = Spring 2011 }} to the articles' talk pages. (The other parameters of the {{WAP assignment}} template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: {{WikiProject United States Public Policy}}
Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself. The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well. The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.
And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them {{The WikiPen}} if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.
Okay, I have done no. 1 and no. 3 for one of the two projects (one of the four editors I am currently mentoring). Will wait for the other students to get active on their article before doing nos. 1-3 for that article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of edit of page that is of interest to you
I've edited the Great Pacific Garbage Patch to include a mass media reference, as well as to remove gross misrepresentation of a certain academic paper, which, ironically enough, is publicly available. The mass media reference, incidentally, quotes the primary author of the paper in question, seven years after the publication of the paper in question, to the effect that the plastic density is one thousand times greater than that extrapolated from his paper by a dishonest wikipedia author, who shall probably remain anonymous, or at least not be exposed due to my efforts. The paper considers plastic particulates in the neuston, and the wikipedia article in the original form falsely implied that the paper was calculating the total platic mass in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. I deliver this notice so as to avoid editing wars, as I'd like either an accurately cited paper to the effect of the original claim (I'll notice in passing that the claim made also constituted original research), or that the undocumented claim not be returned. I realise that you might not be the author of that claim. Boeremoer (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got a message about an hour ago from Professor Obar of the Media and Telecommunication Policy project and I think it is viewed best in full:
Can you please communicate to the online mentors that I DO NOT want them moving student material into the main space for them. This is a big problem. I have noticed that this has happened with a number of the projects already, for example, in the broadband.gov article and the media cross-ownership article. We need the students to be doing this on their own, of course so they can learn how to do it, and also so that I can grade what they've done. How am I supposed to follow student submissions if the data is associated with online mentors? A BIG PROBLEM ALREADY... please help me with this. None of you responded to my post about this on the discussion page. This is about to get out of hand. Jaobar (talk) 05:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
With that, of course, please only give instructions on how to move, don't do it for them. Please only let them know what to do and let them do it themselves. If they run into problems, provide further instructions. Do not it for them. This seems to be making a mess of Prof. Obar's grading system and I would like to avoid that. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem here. I am "coaching" only, and not "doing". Seems like that is what mentoring ought to be: you know, teaching them to fish not handing them a fish. N2e (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third issue of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter, with details about what's going on right now and where help is needed.
Where the courses are - A brief summary of how each of the 31 Public Policy Initiative courses are faring so far in the Spring 2011 term, as of 9-11 March. Feel free to add more detail.
Tracking students' articles - Make sure students' articles are tagged with {{WAP assignment}} on the talk pages, and have the newly improved Article Feedback Tool active.
Online Ambassadors logistics - If you don't have a Wikipedia Ambassador sweatshirt, now's your chance to get one! (Also, some other more mundane, but important, details.)
Steering committee preparing proposals - Look for discussions about two major proposals about the future ambassador program soon: the "Regional Ambassador" role, and elections for a new committee.
Hey, sorry I havent communicated with you about the Spectrum Auction project. Currently, we have an assignment where we have to do random edits on other wiki pages. I chose to update some things about the cast of The Cosby Show but I cant figure out how to add a picture to the biography section (the long box on the right hand side of the pages). I saw the code from the page on the actual show but I dont know how to get the photos to show up on the page Im doing. I would appreciate any help, thanks.
Letia Armstead
Advice On Undoing an Edit
N2e, I was hoping you could advise me on undoing an edit someone recently made to the Appropriate technology page. They changed the spelling of industrialized to British version: industrialised. As this is the only British-English spelling I can find on the page (utilizing is used in the same paragraph and not utilising, practice is also used throughout the article and not pratise), I was going to change it back to the American-English version. Is that an acceptable thing to do? Thanks for the help. EstellaGr8 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I think your intuitive sense of things is about right. I have not looked at the page to consider which type of English spelling, but your intuition is what I usually see: if one type of English spelling is used on a page, it probably should not be changed. However, I do think you should familiarize yourself with the WP manual of style on the topic, it is here.
If the change back is liable to be contentious (and I have no idea at all if it is), then it can be good practice to mention your logic for it, proposal, etc. on the Talk page first. That gives you a chance to build a consensus with other editors.
Having said that, Wikipedia encourages editors to be WP:BOLD, but then offers WP:BRD as a useful process for making it all work out if there is contention on an issue. Some editor is Bold and makes a change to an article (say, use of British English in a word); then some other editor, if they don't think that is quite right, can Revert; then there can/should be a Discussion on the Talk page. Using this logic, it is quite acceptable to just revert it, and invite discussion on the talk page.
At the end of the day, use either approach you think feels right for this circumstance. I will join in on the Talk page (and read the relevant background) at such time as the discussion makes it to that point. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
