User talk:WDGraham: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:23, 26 November 2013

If you leave me a message, I will respond here and if followup is required, I will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template, or send you a notification using the {{ping}} template.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 5 days are automatically archived to User talk:WDGraham/Archive 2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives
2005	2006	2007
2008	2009	2010
2011	2012	2013

Naming convention question

WD, Could you take a look at the redirects for the third stages of Apollo 8 through 11 in Category:Derelict satellites in heliocentric orbit. Looks like I named the three named today inconsistently with the Apollo 11 redir I created nearly a year ago. I'd like to clean this up before we get too many inconsistently named. Would appreciate your help in order to keep them consistent with the standards you've previously established. Feel free to WP:MOVE as appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's the best way to handle these redirects and until now the only ones I was aware of were for the Minotaur V earlier this month. Perhaps this would benefit from a discussion at WP:SPACEFLIGHT on the best way to handle upper stages in orbit - perhaps we could look at creating multiple redirects, and maybe some kind of List of Saturn rocket hardware in orbit page. If the material can be shown to be sufficiently notable we could possibly look to start creating articles on the rockets themselves - several recent discussions have given me the impression that WP:LAUNCHES may need to be reviewed. What do you think? --W. D. Graham 12:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That seems a solid approach. I guess I was hoping you would have a simple ["correct"? ;) ] answer for me. But I totally get that it wasn't something on anyone's mind when that was last worked/reviewed and articulated as an essay on notability. Since I was not involved in the last cycle, I'll let you kick off the discussion, but will be sure to weigh in on any process being discussed, or Talk page where it is discussed. N2e (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about the best way to approach it. --W. D. Graham 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this will soon be archived off your Talk page, do you think we should move the discussion of naming conventions for redirect pointing to derelict upper stage rocket bodies to some other page so we don't forget about this one? N2e (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked this thread so the bot won't archive it. --W. D. Graham 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas (rocket family)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

GA review

Hi,
Have you completed the review of Voyager 1??? Herald talk with me 17:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to be in the correct mindset to do it. The more you keep asking makes me more disinclined to complete the review. I will do it when I have time and am in the right mindset, however if you keep asking then one of two things will happen; either I will try and rush it when I'm not in the correct mindset - and I will likely fail the article unneccessarily as a result - or it will never get done. Otherwise, please give me the time and the space to conduct the review. --W. D. Graham 17:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WDGraham, I wanted to let you know that Planet Herald withdrew the review yesterday (see WT:GAN#Voyager 1), after having received incorrect advice on how to do so; I've just placed the appropriate FailedGA template on the article's talk page. You should probably also be informed that, at the same time, the article was submitted for FAC. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the Launching Template

Hi - it looks like there's a problem with the Launching Template. Some of the templates that I have specified launch dates in 2014 has the countdown time showing negative values. Take a look at Template:Launching/Atlas V (Canaveral) and Template:Launching/Soyuz TMA for examples. Can you (or whoever who did the template) try to fix it? Thanks! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templates have come a long way since that was written; I'm currently in the process of rewriting the entire thing using resources which have become available recently, when it's done it should be a lot more reliable. --W. D. Graham 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

on a related Launching Template question

While you're looking at the launching template, I just noticed recently that the Atlas V template seems to have a geographic location parm (Canaveral or Vandenberg ...) while the Falcon 9 (or Falcon, don't recall) does not. With Falcon 9 now launching from two launch sites, with perhaps a third or fourth on the way in the next few years, you might want to take a look at that.

I'm quite ignorant about Template and template syntax and template improvement, so there may be very good reasons for leaving it the way it is. Just thought I would bring up the rather obvious difference in the meta structure of the two templates for your consideration.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can simply create one using the Launching template.... I myself self-made the launch templates for Vega in 2012 and for Antares in 2013. One observation however: I don't remember any Falcon launches planned from VAFB in 2014, so the need for separate templates for Falcon shouldn't come until late next year. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typically new wrappers are created when they are needed - for example if the same rocket is launching from two different sites within the space of a couple of weeks. --W. D. Graham 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that works fine by me. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of those more knowledgeable than me about the matter. I had just ran into it once when I tried to add the template to a Falcon 9 article, and being unfamiliar with how that is supposed to work, tried using syntax that matched the Atlas V template. That barfed. So for the uninitated, like me, it was just a bit challenging to figure out how to add whatever would work. N2e (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B-level quality article review

Hey WD. Might you be willing to take a look at SpaceX reusable rocket launching system and evaluate it against the B-class article quality criteria for the Spaceflight project? I've written the article over the past few months, and its time to get some other eyes on it to see what it needs to improve, and a B-level review seems appropriate now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It failed in three areas but all were borderline, so it shouldn't take too much work to deal with these issues. --W. D. Graham 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Thanks for the quick response and review! I should be able to fix those up within the next few days. N2e (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, WDGraham. You have new messages at Talk:SpaceX reusable rocket launching system.
Message added 15:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]