Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

U.S. spaceports[edit]

Please use Kennedy Space Center for U.S. manned launches and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (probably best as a pipe-link [[Cape Canaveral Air Force Station|Cape Canaveral]]) for unmanned launches from the Florida coast. The Cape Canaveral article is a disambig and geography article and the two space centers are separate, although adjoining, places. Rmhermen 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks. BTW, I think that the early (Mercury & Gemini) flights were from CCAFS rather than KSC. I'll check it before making changes though.

Is this text necessary?[edit]

Copied from Talk:List of spaceflights (2006):

The lists are maintained by the Lists of Spaceflights by Year WikiProject, but all users are, of course, still free to edit and improve them, but please refrain from making major edits without discussing them on the talk page, or WikiProject talk page first.

I realize that the text is in small type, but this will not bode well with our mirrors. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Might be a matter to discuss on the wikiproject talk page. It may be possible to move them onto the talkpages. --GW_SimulationsTalk | Contribs | E-mail 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In general it is best to place these type of remarks on the talk page, and wanted to raise this concern to the project at large. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Under the new overhaul of all such pages, this tag will be moved to the talk page --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
To me, it looks like a mild case of WP:OWN. Even if you truly have a good reason for not wanting editors to make major edits without discussing them first (and if so, it should be explained), it should be rephrased more flexibly, such as:
The lists are maintained by the Lists of Spaceflights by Year WikiProject, but all users are, of course, still free to edit and improve them, but it may be a good idea to discuss major edits on the talk page, or WikiProject talk page before making them, due to [reason].
Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 22:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I've noticed that the articles in this WikiProject (or at least the ones I've seen) are unverified. It seems they are new, so this is understandable. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency provides a chronological history of spaceflights, divided by topic. However, it seems less complete than the lists of this WikiProject (although it would definitely be an improvement over no references). However, if there is a better source you are using to find the information in the articles, it would be helpful if you could tell me so I could add it to the articles at some point. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 22:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

    • It's a case of cross referencing between SFN, Encyclopedia Astronautica, NASA, other Wikipedia articles, and two text documents I downloaded from some website last week. None of them are complete, so the others are used to fill the gaps. I'll add your link to the ones I use.

I would suggest adding the references to the 2005, 2006, 2007, 1967 and 1970 articles, and the Template:LSY-F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) template, as other articles will be modified using the template system, which will overwrite their current content. An alternative would be to simply post them on the main page, List of spaceflights by year. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Should the scope of this project be adjusted so that rocket-propelled missiles with apogees greater than 100km are excluded? johnpseudo 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say include them. They are still spaceflights, and in the edits I have made, I am trying to treat them eaqually. The only problem I have is finding information of suborbital flights after 2005. (Astronautix is the best source before then.) --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This link: also gives you a couple of clues on suborbital and ICBM flights. although their list of Russian ICBMs is incomplete.
Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory[edit]

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Implement reorganisation proposal

It seems that most similar pages are named Timeline of [subject] with the subpages named [year] in [subject]. In keeping with this, should we rename the WP:LSY pages Timeline of spaceflight, and [Year] in spaceflight. (for example List of spaceflights (2006) would become 2006 in spaceflight, and List of spaceflights by year would become Timeline of spaceflight. This would also allow other events to be listed either above or below the main launch list. Just a thought, if there is no opposistion, I will go to WP:RM in about a week. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. Do you need to go to WP:RM or can it be done without admin assistance? johnpseudo 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't sure if it needed approval from other users or not. If we don't need that, I'll just move them directly.--GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, It has been a week, there is no opposistion, so I am implementing the proposal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reorganisation proposal[edit]

Just to clarify changes that would be made under the proposal:

I think that's all of them. In addition, I would like to do away with the 1 year rule (which seems to have disappeared anyway) that prevents the creation of pages more than a year in advance. (eg, List of spaceflights (2008) cannot be created untill 2007. The reason for this is that it originally seemed to speculative, however there seems to be sufficient information now to proceed with these, especially because of the expansion caused by other elements of the proposal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just joined[edit]

Cool, never knew about this project. Just wanted to say that the the best site for a list of spacefliights is here. I would also like to ask about the tables that are used for the lists. They seem to have too much stuff on them. It should just have the payload, date, rocket, location, and the organization that launched the rocket the other stuff seems exesive. – Zntrip 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That does seem very useful. I don't think that the other information is excessive, however, because it is important to know where it went, what it was for, and when it left space, as well as whether it failed and if so how. Launch times are also important for a full and clear idea of when it was launched. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That information is sort of exesive beacuse it could be found out on the spacecraft's article, if the mission is important. I guess it could all me summed up in a slot called "mission type" or something. I'd like to hammer out a definate standard for everything before I start editing everything. This is what I have in mind:

Launch date and time (UTC) Rocket Launch site Organization Payload Mission type Remarks
January 19


Atlas V Cape Canaveral NASA New Horizons Interplanetary Flyby of Pluto in 2015

There's kind of a lot of info on the pages and some is just too specific. Also, I don't know if having suborbital flights on the list is a good idea since there are way too many and there are tonnes of Soviet ones that are we are never going to find out about. – Zntrip 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - it reduces the amount of information which is not always a good thing, and as for sub-orbital flights, how about Mercury-Redstone 3, MR-4 and SpaceShipOne.
Your new format:
  1. Does not probide information on the outcome of the flight
  2. Does not explain when the mission ends (re-entry), not that it is appropriote with this example, but it is still inportant.
  3. Does not explain the type of orbit that it was placed into.
I summarise by saying that spaceflight is a highly technical buissness, and therefore justifies the technical terminology. Also, I will add that very few sub-orbital "spaceflights" actually qualify for this, as most go nowhere near space (100km up).
Your idea is not without its uses though. I would be in favour of setting up a version of this project on the Simple English version of Wikipedia, and your layout could be useful for this project. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well here's the thing: information on the outcome of the flight, re-entry, when the mission ends and the type of orbit isn't that doable since most of the launches are for classified military payloads or commercial payloads. I'm guessing this is geared for scientific missions. Also with the number of launches every year increasing, every launch will not be that notable. Making the list more consise is always better. As for the sub-orbital launches, I agree that notable scientific ones should be on the list, but all of the Minuteman flights aren't that important. – Zntrip 02:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This may surprise you. The launch industry is in decline, and far from increasing, the trend for total number of launches per year is going down quite steeply. 2006 is likley to have more launches than 2004 and 2005, but it will be nowhere near some previous years, such as 2000. I disagree with your "notability" principle, as who is going to define notability. As for classified payloads, there are always ways to find out. I happen to know that a Russian "classified" satellite failed on orbit earlier this year, so it is not impossible, if you know where to look. De-orbits are easy, because anything low enough to de-orbit is low enough to be observable, except nanosats, but I am unaware of any classified nanosats. Orbits can usually be worked out, based on type of rocket, type of spacecraft, operator, whether it is observable or not, where it is launched from, which direction it launches in, etc. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards[edit]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)