Talk:International Space Station

"Sea plankton"

As I've previously remarked over at Talk:Plankton, this story is WP:RECENT. It's also not yet mentioned on NASA's ISS webpages - which is odd for such a seemingly striking story. As such, I'm going to remove it from the lead for now (which isn't the place for it anyway), but it can be added again once more is known about the story officially (i.e. from NASA). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Strange statement

What does this sentence from the end of the second paragraph of the "Docking" section mean? "An automated approach could allow assembly of modules orbiting other worlds prior to crew arrival." I'm tempted to change it to say that an automated approach of modules already in orbit but I won't since I'm not sure that is accurate and/or not OR. 174.52.198.8 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding topics which supposedly had consensus reached...

...a single editor keeps making the claim that such topics have been discussed again and again. This same editor refers to how a (what I found to be probably non-existent) consensus was reached with regard to the dialect to be used. However, I just have to say that following a search, the earliest discussion about this I could find wasn't even a real consensus, and half the "arguments" were unjustified non-arguments. Many were saying to use British English because it is an international subject, but British English does not equate superior or international English. Forcing editors to use a single dialect on something like this is stupid, and WDGraham keeps acting like there was no consensus to change the dialect, but there was no consensus to change to British English in the first place. This not only goes against WP:RETAIN but also goes against WP:TIES. Within reason, there should not be a single dialect which editors are restricted to use. At the very least, I think editors should at least show respect for national ties to United States and Canada by neglecting the {{British English}} template; {{Use British English}} is already used on the main page, and that is the tag that makes a difference. Using the British flag on an article such as this misrepresents the international nature of the project. If you hope to end this, I would suggest providing links to any places where a decision was made to formally establish British English as the variant to be used in the article, and not any of that "no consensus" nonsense. Dustin (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I won't just sit idle if nobody responds. Dustin (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You should not make changes without establishing consensus, and lack of response is not de facto consensus. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I said that so people would not just try to ignore me and hope that I wouldn't do anything. Dustin (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And the addition of that template was made without any real consensus anyway from what I can tell. Dustin (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but if nobody even cares to defend his or her position, why should I refrain from making changes? If silence persists, I will make whatever change I deem to be necessary. Not just on this page but on a variety of pages, this sort of issue needs to be addressed, and the usage of national flags on English dialect templates should be reconsidered. This topic has very few connections with the flag of the United Kingdom, so why should the flag be used? That would be like using the flag of India for an subject almost purely associated with Britain. Dustin (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well since no-one has responded, here's my comment: I knew that this topic has been a PITA some years ago and maybe bringing up this topic will bring along explosive events ;) (I was never involved with that incident) , however I am actually siding with abolishing the British English guideline due to the reasons above (and yes I know that the main usage of British English in the first place was due to most of the parts being written by just the handful of users who use it, just like me), and also because the reason to put this template up in the first place - some editing wars a few years ago - has not come back for a long time already. Personally I don't see the point of keeping it here - well maybe that's because I really don't care about British vs American English and actually use both interchangeably. ;)

That said, I suggest that the user above not to remove that template until at least a few more user have commented on this and also discuss if there are any issues that could arise with removing it. I don't want this to kick open a box of explosives again and further damage this article that has already been demoted some time ago..... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that may not have been the best response, but it is probable that my attempt at discussion would have been ignored otherwise. If a dialect had to be used, it should probably be American English considered the greater degree of involvement than Canada or the United Kingdom, although Canada still has made many contributions so would be a better candidate than British English. Requiring British English under the current circumstances is unacceptable, however, considering the major lack of contributions. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom is only mentioned once in the entire article () and it isn't even in the main article text but is in a list under the European Space Agency in the International co-operation section. The United States and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are mentioned so many times that I cannot easily count them (over 200 times, though) and Canada and the Canadian Space Agency are mentioned what appears to be about 25 times. The United Kingdom is only mentioned once in this article. I know that the terms used in an article are not completely representative of the national ties of the subjects, but clearly, the UK has next to no national ties to this subject. Dustin (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Who is paying for the Space Station? The article should be written in USA English. GroveGuy (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If we are to use consistency, then the American English dialect makes more sense than the variant used in the United Kingdom. Just consider the amount of involvement... there needs to be another discussion about this, but one where it isn't just the British editors saying "keep as is" and American editors saying "change it". I have provided my reasoning. Dustin (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ref?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/science/space/international-space-station-ammonia-leak.html Bananasoldier (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)