:::: Great. I thought it must be MA-1 because (1) it looked like a Mercury hatch, and (2) MA-1 is the only one that I could think of that was damaged that heavily. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 03:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
:::: Great. I thought it must be MA-1 because (1) it looked like a Mercury hatch, and (2) MA-1 is the only one that I could think of that was damaged that heavily. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] <sup>[[User talk:Bubba73|You talkin' to me?]]</sup> 03:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
== Stub articles duplicating parts of [[Megastructures]] ==
I've noticed a bunch of low grade/stub articles all trying to cover the subject of giant-scale speculative space structures, from space elevators to Dyson spheres and larger. For example: [[Megascale engineering]], [[Macro-engineering]], [[Astronomical engineering]], [[Planetary engineering]], [[Stellar engineering]], etc. The only article that is well-written is [[Megastructures]] (and the tangential subject [[Exploratory engineering]]), so I suggest redirecting all the others either to [[Megastructures]] or to a suitable sub-section within that article. (Keeping an eye out for anything unique in the stubs which should be kept and moved to [[Megastructures]].)<br>
Secondly, if anyone has spare time, a snipe-hunt for all the articles that link to the above list and, a) relink them to [[Megastructures]] or an appropriate sub-section, and b) try to create a more consistent nomenclature in those articles to reflect the language in [[Megastructures]].<br>
-- [[User:PaulxSA|PaulxSA]] ([[User talk:PaulxSA|talk]]) 09:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, this at most looks to make it way more confusing to me, for sure in the current proposed form. "Shuttle 2.xx" does not tell me anything about what it is and If I was looking for a Buran-class spacecraft that would certainly not make me think that it would be that. "Shuttle 2.xx"... does someone mean badminton shuttle version 2.01, Shuttle bus route 202 or could it be a redirect for the American space shuttle? I don't think anyone would know. --Redalert2fan (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Renaming the article "Shuttle 1.02" is IMHO confusing for two reasons. One, "Shuttle" is a word typically associated with the American NASA Space Shuttle System, therefore is not suitable for the Soviet Buran program. Two, Shuttle may in some cases bring the reader to think that the Buran Programme was just a simple "copycat" or "version" of the American Shuttle, while the Soviet proposal is different in many ways. If you really want to keep the series of articles consistent, either "OK-1K2 Ptichka" or "Ptichka (Buran-class spacecraft)" could be more appropriate Stormtrooper (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Ptichka means "little birdie", I am surprised the article as it is now is not called something like "Ptichka (reusable spaceplane)". Anyway, this machine has an official name, so use it. Mikus (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that current move proposal (à la OK-GLI) is a little incorrect. For orbital vehicles there are two known naming systems: by hull (1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02, 2.03), and by GRAU index serial number (1K, 2K, 3K, 4K, 5K). Designation like 2K1 is the flight configuration (2K is the designation of the orbiter, 1 is the flight number of this orbital vehicle), it was probably intended to be used similarly to the designations of STS flights in the US. As for me, continuing referring to those vehicles as "Buran-class spacecraft/orbiters", with a hull number is the best option. For Ptichka (the name is not official, as far as i concerned), the name itself sounds a bit informal, and sources i found do not clarify the origin of this name. The name "Burya" would most likely have been approved if the program had not been closed. Qydm (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (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.
References mentioned in the template have been added to the article. I nominate for removal of the template. If there are no objections, we can remove it after the talk. Any other suggestions to improve the article is greatly appreciated.
Thanks!-Crazydaemon1 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While reading the article Shenzhou program I noticed after expanding it, that at the bottom of Template:Shenzhou program it says the previous mission is "Shenzhou 9" and next mission "Shenzhou 10" However Shenzhou 11 has already flown in space (in 2016). When I viewed the template to see if I could fix that, the intricate features of wiki-template syntax stumbled me, and are above my editing capabilities. So instead of screwing around with it, I thought it best to leave the info here. --Dutchy45 (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the before and after parameters are arguments given to the navbox when you call it. As I read it, if you were adding this box to Shenzhou 5, for example, the template markup would look like {{Shenzhou program|before=[[Shenzhou 4]]|after=[[Shenzhou 6]]}}. Rather than capturing the program as a whole, the before and after arguments show the events relative to specific article.--Cincotta1 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed rename of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– With the official renaming of CCAFS to CCSFS (confirmation is in body text of linked article), I'd like to once again propose to group all Cape Canaveral launchpad articles by geographic location. Many of these launch sites have been inactive since the 60s, so renaming them to "Cape Canaveral Space Force Station Launch Complex #" would be incorrect, as they never had that name during active use, and renaming only the pages of active launch sites would violate Wikipedia guidelines on title consistency. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 08:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the situation has changed since then. I am proposing a different rationale: That this is the best way to reconcile the article titles with the newly-renamed Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 18:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in question is slightly incorrect. Renaming bases has not yet occurred, but will occur after the Cornoavirus crisis dies down. That being said, I think all of these make sense to execute now, except for rennaming from AFS to SFS. Garuda28 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (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.
Recent changes and Controversy heading at United Launch Alliance
Hello, Megan with ULA here again. I'm disappointed to see some of the recent changes to the United Launch Alliance article, which reintroduce a "Controversy" heading and unfair text the community removed last summer. I've submitted a request here to remove the header, per Wikipedia:Criticism. So far no editors have replied to the request. Editors here have been very helpful in the past, so I'm hoping members of WikiProject Spaceflight might be willing to undo recent changes or merging content into the History section appropriately? Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the museum's web page, I would say Liberty bell 7 from Mercury-Redstone 4. They do not provide a picture, but this is the only hatch explicitly named in the article and this makes sense with the narrative of the ballistic re-entry and splashdown provided in our article on the subject.--Cincotta1 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Maybe not that much sense, since that happened on the water and the craft was not recovered until later. Maybe Sigma 7 from Mercury-Atlas 8 which had its hatch detonated manually after recovery in response to the M-R4 incident?--Cincotta1 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The museum sent me a link to a video on their facebook page. About 11:30 into the video, the host begins discussing the hatch; it is from Mercury-Atlas 1! They also forwarded my email to the collection manager so I may hear more, but I think the question is answered--Cincotta1 (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed a bunch of low grade/stub articles all trying to cover the subject of giant-scale speculative space structures, from space elevators to Dyson spheres and larger. For example: Megascale engineering, Macro-engineering, Astronomical engineering, Planetary engineering, Stellar engineering, etc. The only article that is well-written is Megastructures (and the tangential subject Exploratory engineering), so I suggest redirecting all the others either to Megastructures or to a suitable sub-section within that article. (Keeping an eye out for anything unique in the stubs which should be kept and moved to Megastructures.)
Secondly, if anyone has spare time, a snipe-hunt for all the articles that link to the above list and, a) relink them to Megastructures or an appropriate sub-section, and b) try to create a more consistent nomenclature in those articles to reflect the language in Megastructures.
-- PaulxSA (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
