Talk:Vega flight VV15

Use of feminine gender for spacecraft

@7REPTILLIAN7: Dear, I will revert your edit of "her" into "the", as a spacecraft may be referred to in the feminine form (see for example this forum thread: Topic: Correct spacecraft terminology), and the "the" is less stylish. However, feel free to replace it by "its" if you think it is a better choice. Kind regards. benrem (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benrem: While "her" is an acceptable term, it appears and sounds less formal than "the", which is also an acceptable term. 7REPTILLIAN7 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@7REPTILLIAN7 and Benrem: I also concur that "the spacecraft" is a completely acceptable term. It isn't incorrect English, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@7REPTILLIAN7 and PhilipTerryGraham: I do agree with you, as I said in my original message, however "the" in this particular sentence was not very stylish. I therefore replaced it by "its". Cheers, benrem (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article illustration comments

@PhilipTerryGraham: Dear Philip, I noticed that you replaced the image and its caption in the infobox. I have several remarks regarding these changes:

You cropped the original image to remove what appears to be a frame, however this dark part is actually part of the artwork, and this modification of the original image it may be considered as a copyright infringement. In the original (not the one you used, but the real original), part of this frame is transparent. This is why I uploaded the image in PNG format in the first place.
In the image description, I read "The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the poster, the publisher, Arianespace, or the graphic artist". This is incorrect. The Arianespace brochure cover picture is this one: [1]. The image that you and I uploaded is the CNES CSG poster. It belongs to CNES, and not to Arianespace.
I don't understand why you replaced the caption "CNES CSG flight poster" by "Artwork featured on visitors' brochures", especially since you acknowledge, in the image description, that it is actually the poster of the flight. See also my previous comment about the fact that it is the CNES version.

I would therefore suggest you revert these two changes. Best regards, benrem (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benrem: Hey there! I've restored the border, but the original source you provided did not seem to have any deliberate transparency. [1]. When I did a test in GIMP, the only transparencies in the image seemed to be some randomly placed transparent pixels scattered throughout the image, and the border was almost completely opaque apart from these aforementioned pixels. Therefore, this is staying as a JPEG per the non-free content criteria on maintaining low-resolution image quality. I've made changes to {{Non-free use rationale poster}} across all the CSG brochure posters to recognise CNES as the authors per your suggestion, though it should be noted that this is ultimately the purpose of the posters – to serve as the front cover of the brochure that is handed out at CSG to spectators on launch day, much like a sporting match programme. [2] This ought to be stated in the image caption in {{Infobox rocket launch}}, though maybe we could reword it since you don't seem satisfied by the current wording. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham: Hi Philip, thanks for that. I'll try to investigate whether it was deliberate or not. It's correct that it is reproduced on brochures (and also on stickers, clothes, and potentially other items), so your caption is not incorrect, it's just that I took your deletion of the previous one personally. Still I know these modifications, like others in the series, pursue the goal of making Wikipedia, and these articles, better, to which I concur. Side note: Regarding the edits you did for the dates, I also prefer the "date hour" format rather than the "hour, date", it's just that I prefer using the {{Start date|2019|07|11|01|53|03|Z|df=yes}} template. It's also more readable for computers, which makes it easier for example Google to answer questions like "When was Vega flight VV01 launched?" accurately. I think the Start date template should be updated to satisfy us both. Do you think that would be possible? Kind regards, benrem (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benrem: I definitely wouldn't mind at least attempting to get it changed to accept date-first formats! I've gone ahead and started a discussion at Template talk:Start date, if you're interested! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilipTerryGraham: Great, thanks a lot! benrem (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of the ESA official?

Can we get some id for the woman in the video explaining the launch and orbit sequence? A name and official title would improve the credibility and provenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6F80:A90:DC34:CC3F:7B43:9C (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Said an anonymous user :-)

Her name and title are presented at the beginning of the video, which was published on the official Arianespace YouTube channel, as presented on the video wiki page. I personally don't see any credibility or provenance issue there. benrem (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]