Please read this box first!
Welcome to my talk page! Questions, information, warnings? Say it here! Please post new topics at the bottom of this page, please sign your topic by placing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the very end, and please remember, assume good faith!You can click here to start a new topic.
If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there. Thank you.
Dear Chizero, Thank you very much for the improvements and lesson on the use piped links. You might note that I put your lesson into practice right away by hot linking Hellzapoppin (without the apostrophe) to Hellzapoppin' (musical), incorrectly listed with an apostrophe. I haven't figured out how to make a correction on an article title. (There is, by the way, an apostrophe in the movie version of Hellzapoppin').
I have what I think is a related question you may be able to answer. For the link to "Alexander Pantages," I would like to go directly to the section, "Pantages Theatre Circuit" included in the Alexander Pantages Wikipedia article. I have a memory of seeing a way to do that, but I haven't been able to relocate the instructions. Again, many thanks for your help. Brad Smith (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The result of the move request was: Moved by Látches ~~~~
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.
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:
Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.
If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
I replied to your comments about my suggestion on the village pump. Thanks for taking the time to add your thoughts on the discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below.
Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects
The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group.
A number of issues are still under discussion:
Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process
Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles
Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes
Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones
A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Thanks, no problem, it would have taken forever to convert them otherwise. In fact there are so many pages well within our scope that never had a banner or been tagged under spaceflight either. Still I'm leaving out the importance on many of them just to speed things up a bit, so there'll still be more work to do. ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
In recognition of your contributions to the reorganisation of WikiProject Spaceflight, and for your work on updating the project banners on talk pages, I would like to award you The Space Barnstar. GW…15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChiZeroOne...read your comments...I am trying to get the article on RocketShip Tours re-written to a more encyclopedic word-smithing style/format...I took a look at the list of "Peacock Words " and phrases section that you referred to and I'm currently in the process of correcting same. Thanks for pointing out your concern...should have this revamped within the next 48 hours.MediaMogulMan (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure if you saw my note. I need you to clarify what you mean by: "I probably should point out a good 700 or so of those are fortunately non article-space, useful content in supporting editing." It's not very clear to me what you are trying to say. You can make the clarification directly on the interview page. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on the article. I'm very sorry, but I'm still not clear about these 700 non-article space. What are these? Are they templates, project pages, etc.? How did you get the number of 700? Are these pages listed somewhere? Sorry for being a pain but I need to clarify it for our readers, or they will start making comments on the article once it is published. Thanks again for your help! – SMasters (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes these are pages that are not articles, categories etc. If you look at our assessment page you'll see a large number of pages in the NA column of the topmost table. These are things like template-space pages e.g Template:Shenzhou program, media files e.g Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg etc etc. My point in the interview was that these sorts of pages are important to improving spaceflight articles but they themselves only need general maintenance, so while we do have a lot of articles to cover it's not as bad as the headline figure appears because a number of them are not full articles. All non article-space pages are marked NA for importance to the project so the number is just the number of NA articles, which has just in the last day broken over the 800 mark.
I was questioning whether it is a diffusive category, I don't believe it is. A diffusive category breaks another down into more specific versions, I.e Space programs -> Chinese space program. But that's not really what's going on between these categories, the subcategory is an aspect of the main one, and indeed it makes sense looking at the category structure here (I edited that article as part of a wider clean up). As such there should be no problem with an article being labelled under both, in fact it makes the categories far more useful/easier to navigate if they are. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the task of replacing the old banner with the new one is almost done: 101.6% complete! If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a mistake. :-) Mlm42 (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, yeah I realised that. I know about half the "extra" are articles I've tagged in the last day, but that still makes 40 or so extra transclusions than there should be! :-S Oh well, I'll pretend they don't exist for now. ChiZeroOne (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Hi ChiZeroOne. You've been doing a yeoman's job on getting the spaceflight-related articles identified and banners added. I've been doing (compared to you) just a very little work in that area. My question is: Do you know of any WP or Wikimedia tools for watching the Spaceflight wikiproject, and seeing the DIFFERENCE in articles in the project based on a few simple categories, over some period of time (say the last week, or the last month)? I'm looking for something that would show stats on articles added/removed from the project, or class or quality ratings changed. Thanks very much. N2e (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've noticed you around assessing articles, very much appreciated. What do you mean by stats? The Spaceflight articles by quality log has the raw list of article changes in all the categories you say you want. It updates a list of additions, removals, assessments, reassessments and renaming every day. All you need to do to see older entries is load previous revisions. Is that of any use or were you looking for something more? ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool, and supplies a great deal of what I was looking for. BTW, that link ought to be on the WPSpaceflight Assessment page if it isn't already. I didn't see it before, and I haven't gone back to look now that you provided me the link.
I also would like to see who is assessing articles for WikiProject Spaceflight. I'm guessing it is mostly you, and I've done a few, but who else, and in what period of time? So I guess I'm looking for a bit more. It also would be helpful if the "change list" were sortable by the type of changes made in the (selectable) past day/week/month, Quality Raised, Quality Lowered, Importance Raised, Importance Lowered, and what those changes were for each. (e.g., Stub to C, or B to C, or unassessed to Start; and also Low to Med, High to Top, noPriority to Low, etc. In short, if this tool exists for Wikipedia WikiProjects in general, I'd like to know where it is and try to use it, or set up a page to use it, for WPSpaceflight. If the tool does not already exist, I'm sure it's not worth trying to develop it for just our little project. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Specific log pages are linked to from a box around the task force assessment tables like Human spaceflight, but I think the same wasn't done for the Spaceflight one because of issues with space. I agree having such a link is useful.
I am not aware of any such tools. It could be an interesting project to develop one. If we can come up with a specification, I might have a go, but no promises. --GW…16:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for offering your view on this. As to you "having a go", I'll leave any of the tool-writing to you and others with knowledge and interest—I am totally ignorant of the Wikipedia tools coding etc. However, IF you are ready to turn on any effort, let me know and I would be more than happy to join you in a little requirements analysis and in the requirements specification part of the project. N2e (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any tools like that either; the WP 1.0 bot is what updates the article assessment pages and tables.. so a tool like this should probably be added at that level, so other projects could use it as well. The piece of information the bot doesn't already have is "who" assessed the article. I'm not sure how easy this is to determine for a bot, but it seems feasible. I might be worth bringing this whole question up at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index to see if there's interest. Mlm42 (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I not part of your team, but I thought I could help by offering some suggestions. As I understand it, you are wanting something where you are able to see all of the assessments of the articles, when they were assessed and who assessed them (basically)? It would be quite an undertaking, but I would suggest starting a new page with a sortable table of all of the articles within the project. Then possibly, every Friday or some other day, a committee of at least three members from the project can discuss on that page, the assessment of the articles most changed since the previous meeting. After discussing and assessing the articles, one member could update the table to reflect the new assessments, possibly a one line comment about how the article met the requirements or why it didn't, the date of the assessment and the names of the members who assessed the article. This would keep your project collaborative while maintaining some oversight on the somewhat subjective matter of assessing articles. For such an undertaking, I'd be willing to help if that is what you intended. --Xession (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ChiZeroOne. You have new messages at Greyhood's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I just added Flight to WPSpaceflight. Rationale: it seems a rather core concept to our project, and it has a (brief) section on Spaceflight. Moreover, it has been assessed as "This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have." so it generally makes the release versions of Wikipedia.
I should have mentioned, the article needs a little work from a Spaceflight point of view. E.g., currently "History" is pretty much "Aviation history" and "Physics" is "Aerodynamics"; would probably be better to have Spaceflight history and Astrodynamics get a mention, at minimum. N2e (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should warn you now I'm generally quite strict about inclusion as you might see from the project talk page, everyone seems more forgiving than me :P . I'm not entirely sure it is really a core concept, it seems far too general with only a small portion concerning spaceflight in particular, and most actual spaceflight operates on quite different principles to the rest. I think mid importance is fine. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
I don't think the choice of "rocket engine" as a disambiguator is the best since its not a pure rocket. Why not leave it at the manufacturermodel title like aero-engines (which it technically is). By way of comparison the North American X-15 engines are at Reaction Motors XLR11 and the Blue Steel missile's are Rolls-Royce RZ2. It would also fit in with ScimitarGraemeLeggett (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well as REL say themselves..."The SABRE engine is essentially a closed cycle rocket engine with an additional pre-cooled turbo-compressor to provide a high pressure air supply to the combustion chamber.". I realise that technically it is neither a rocket or a jet when taken over it's whole flight profile but referring to it as a form of rocket engine is clearly what REL themselves prefer in their documentation. As I pointed to in the renaming section on the Skylon talk page, with regard to spaceflight technology, manufacturer names as a form of disambiguation are not generally preferred on Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter whether other pages exist (they may simply have not been changed yet), what matters is there have been previous discussions on spaceflight-related articles that have come to the conclusion that such disambiguation is not preferred. Btw if you're going to say it is not a rocket engine it's just as easy to point out neither is it an "aero-engine" (unlike Scimitar) and so comparisons with things more clearly in the field of aviation don't necessarily apply. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot, It is also an issue of common name. It may well be that the common name for the engines you quote do indeed include the manufacturer. I don't believe that is the case with SABRE, it itself seems mostly to be referred to as simply the SABRE engine and so including the manufacturer name would seem not to adhere to the policy. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The X-15 motors are at XLR-11?" Yes, the first couple X-15s used LR-11s for most of the first 32 flights in the program. That noted, there was was nothing "X" about the LR-11 after over a dozen years and hundreds of flights it, and the very similar LR-8, were not the least experimental by the time of the X-15 flights. Nor was the LR-99 experimental by the time it was installed in X-15 #3. Most certain of all, the LR-11 was nothing more than a stop gap while the XLR-99 was tamed.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any decision to change articles should be mutual, achieved by consensus between those involved, that is what the talk page is for. It is not for me or anyone else to unilaterally decide what is to be done, it will be decided by the progress of the discussion. This discussion is simply about how best to represent the subjects we cover and how best to organise the information. No one is proposing simply getting rid of the article without first re-using good quality information in other pages; it certainly shouldn't just suddenly disappear. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not being a WikiGod, I accept the dictum ex cathedra. I am glad I would get warning that things would change so that work would not be wasted.
Unstated upon my page is that I was an Aerospace Engineering student who took a major in history for relaxation. I have never worked in either.
I never worked in aerospace engineering because in the early 1970s the combination of historical trends (fewer programs), the end of the Vietnam War, and the lend of the Space Race (cancellation of Apollo flights and Apollo Applications Technology had discarded 40,000 over-qualified engineers upon the Los Angeles taxi driver worker pool. To do academic history would have limited my life to becoming ever more expert about an ever smaller part of history. I ended up as a small and very small businessman. Working in a number of rapidly evolving businesses where my technical and historical comprehension allowed me to surf the bleeding edge of many technologies for decades.
I don't mind doing the work, but also don't like seeing good work discarded because it does not fit the desire of some bureaucrat or exactly comply with the eternal desire of bureaucrats to drive round reality into square holes.
I am trained to see engineering problems and historical events with both an engineering and historical perspective. The only 'bias' I must adhere to is the bias of reality whether it be evidenced by physical reality or historic events and perspective.
I think that the "Sputnik Crisis" is a most appropriate title for what has been a divided effort between the "Sputnik Program," and the rather anemic article "sputnik crisis." I would be glad to integrate the information in Sputnik Crisis into the current Sputnik Program page.
Every book I have cited is in my personal library. I use the Internet all the time, and wrote my first web page in hand coded html during the mid-1990s. I do not confuse the web with a reliable source unless filtered by trained intelligence. I used 'Arpanet' long before Al Gore 'invented it' (I am also aware Al Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the internet).
I always try to cite and reference anything I write or add since I learned how to do it. I always try to maintain a neutral bias unless a honest treatment of the subject requires the statement of a positive bias to convey reality as it happened. History is not without bias. Some folks loose wars despite having good reasons and some monsters win them despite deserving to die. To a historian only trying to tell a biased story for propaganda,profit or for ideological justification, is wrong. To insist the USA could have 'won' the non-existent, except in a few minds of a few, 'race' to put up the first satellite would require ignoring why the leaders of BOTH the Soviet Union and USA did not consider being first to do so essential at the expense of greater national goals.
The initial response of Dwight and Nikita was amusingly similar. That one came to realize he had the perfect weapon with which to secure his position and policies while the other had to scramble to take actions which assuaged the public is Ironic. That I have not sought to ram either point down the throats of Wikipedia should also be noted.
Eisenhower was awarded what he had spent tens of millions "vanguard" dollars to achieve by the Soviet Union. Nikita had his desire to out-flank the propaganda value of America's Strategic Air Command by accepting Korolev's argument, that given the delays in the Re-entry Vehicle for the 8K71, the launch crews would be best kept up to snuff by sending up a simple satellite. I do not think I have slighted either man or either nation in my edits.
In the last day I have reviewed the three 'Sputnik' articles and tried to improve two of them. i have also looked at the 'Sputnik Crisis' page and understand what the author was trying to convey and think that the author did as best he could without extensive documentation and the personal experience necessary to convey the facts and the essential nature of the time.
If the WikiLords agree I would like to use the "sputnik program' article as a means of integrating the 'sputnik crisis' page into a single entry, titled with the far more perfect term 'Sputnik Crisis.'
I am NOT a corporate kind of guy who easily fits within any organizational structure. That is why I have spent my life self-employed. I am not out to prove any 'point' except that history and engineering have to be honest or fail. An Engineer will accept reality and try to use it to his advantage. he will never try to pound a square peg into a round hole. A historian will seek to comprehend and communicate what happened and why - to describe and document the geometry - rather than try to make what happened and why fit a preconceived geometry.
I got REALY fed up when a Wiki Editor insisted upon posting an extremely edited version of a communication while refusing to allow the inclusion of, or citation of, the total contents of the message in question which countered the personal opinion of that editor.
But then I was never a bureaucrat kiss ass and can never be one.
I think one of my first Wikipages, US Army Airships was pretty good as originally posted. I think that my recent improvements also have merit. I have at least one linear meter of books on lighter-than-air flight and that my knowledge in the subject is based upon fact instead of desire.
Some fool thinks that everything about Airships can be condensed into a single article. If you look into the "List of US Navy Airships" and the original article addressing the why and how of USN airships which was deleted, it will be apparent that the original article should be a stub of the airships page and should have not been reduced to a mere list which has no context.
No doubt there are people with no knowledge of source material or later scholarship will not comprehend how 'Sputnik' is both an object and an event, but I think it must be treated as both. The Sputnik 1 article is very good, and i have not sought to 'tamper' with it because it is, in my opinion, too dependent upon internet resources and lacking in citations and references which will survive any simple purge of websites or entire servers.
I am, asking for guidance, though I am pledging liege to any WikiGod. If my return to editing is an effort which will not serve the increasingly autocratic forms and formulas of Wikipedia, then let me know.
Free spirits need bureaucrats almost as much as bureaucrats need free spirits. If Wikipedia has become so calcified in it's bureaucracy that it has no need of free spirits with a big library and a passion to see it does not simply reward myself, so be it.
Sorry it took a while to get round to it but I have done an assessment [1]. All-in-all it's a good well-referenced article, the only thing stopping me bumping the article to C-class straight away is the short lede. To get the article to B-class from there would need a little work on the structure as well as the breadth of coverage, which in my experience tends to come from setting out a logical flowing structure anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the rating and the comments. I was not actually the creator of the article, but I'll see what I can do in the way of re-writing and expanding the lead in.Graham1973 (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your Pea edit. I and others have being debating
this figure, but we now guess that it was a typo error in the
emails that I exchanged with C. Cardamone. Anyway, 10^8 years,
or more easily 100 million years- very young indeed.Richard Nowell (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Considering 10^8 billion years is far older than the universe I guessed it was a little off...I assumed the 1/100th comparison was correct and since the Milky Way is ~10^10 years old that 10^8 years is what was meant. Yes it is exeptionally young, that's only half the time it takes the Milky Way to rotate once! ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Following the NASA FY2013 budget cuts, it is evident (official) that NASA put on indefinite hold their Flagship Program; I included a couple of refs in its talk page for discussion purposes. I am not familiar with that program and I wonder if you'd like to update (or assist me updating) that article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article's talkpage is the place to express what you'd like to about the article, and I had already invited you to do so. I'd like to warn you not to add inappropriate templates to the article itself. Thanks ChiZeroOne ! Penyulap talk14:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to discuss past what was said in the edit summary, a POV tag has been placed on the article and it should not be removed until the dispute is resolved. To do so is disruptive editing. Also, do not "warn" me over anything. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should check the article and talkpage history before you go backing the wrong horse. There was no dispute whatsoever on the talkpage of the article or anywhere else. WD hadn't even done a single edit, so how can that constitute an ongoing dispute. Go read the documentation of the template that you are defending the use of. You want an example of disruptive editing, well, the use of such a template is a fine example. Penyulap talk18:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What on Earth have you been doing with the articles related to Medway? Medway is a unitary authority politically separate from Kent County Council but it most definitely is still in the ceremonial county of Kent and so are all the places within it. Also Medway is a conurbation, not a town or city and therefore your wholesale changing of placenames is erroneous. I say this myself being from Rochester. You have changed so many articles I would appreciate it if you would help reverting them back to their correct state. ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Medway is not in Kent - it is in the position of a number of places, such as Bromley and Enfield Town, where the administration has changed over the years. It has an anachronistic link to Kent in that the Lieutenancies Act 1997 which linked the Medway Towns with Kent has not been amended, and I have put that information in the articles with citations so people are correctly informed of the situation, so there is nothing to revert back. SilkTork✔Tea time07:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Medway is in Kent, in fact you said as much yourself! [2], "seems it is still true that Medway is in the cermonial county of Kent - placed in main body and cited" and yet have mysteriously ignored this in every other edit. I don't think you can grasp that geography (the ceremonial county of Kent), and local government politics (Medway Council and Kent County Council) are not the same. Indeed the address of the main Medway Council buildings is;
Medway Council
Gun Wharf
Dock Road
Chatham
Kent
ME4 4TR
I live in Rochester which is part of the Medway conurbation, I think I know that it remains in the ceremonial county of Kent, as do all other unitary authorities created in their respective counties (excepting for example the creation of the Metropolitan districts and their respective Metropolitan counties). Yes administration has changed but the only change to come in 1998 was that the creation of the unitary authority separated the highest tier of local government in Kent between Medway Council and Kent County Council, because by definition unitaries only have one tier of local government. This did not change the status that Medway is in the county of Kent. I'm well within my rights to BRD if the sources are interpreted by you incorrectly. ChiZeroOne (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen what you are doing. If you disagree or don't understand the rationale for an edit the appropriate approach is to discuss the matter. What you are doing is disruptive and can lead to edit wars. First we can discuss it, and if after discussion you still feel that Medway is in Kent, then we can open up a wider discussion.
First of all, what do you feel is incorrect about this opening sentence:
You have removed that sentence even though it is informative, accurate and sourced.
Second, as Chatham is in Medway, why do you feel it is more helpful to have the title as Chatham, Kent. For disambiguation by place we go for the nearest large recognisable area, so we have Beeston, Leeds, Barbican, Plymouth, Bradwell, Milton Keynes, etc. Before the towns in Medway were formally recognised as a unit to be called Medway, they were known for some time as the Medway Towns, so there has long been a recognition of Chatham as being part of either MEdway Towns or Medway. There would be a possible discussion of the appropriate naming of places like Rainham, which still retain some association with Kent, and I gave that some thouight, but felt that as a disambiguation was needed, it would be preferable to go for consistency with the other places in Medway - but for Rainham and possibly Gillingham there is room for some discussion. SilkTork✔Tea time07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think I was doing by messaging you on your Talk page if not discussing? That doesn't change the fact this is contentious material and according to Wikipedia guidelines it should be removed until consensus has been reached, especially considering you have changed so many articles without discussion. You need to prove that your interpretation of the sources is correct, it is not my responsibility to first show you why they are wrong.
Do not tell me my edits are disruptive when you have made wholesale changes without consulation to a great many articles manually in such a short space of time (this actually is defined by the community as disruptive behaviour) and then are surprised when actually it's shown to be incorrect?
With regard to the opening sentences you are using a source to claim something that isn't in the source! Where in the "Medway Council –Local history: Medway in the 20th century 1901 – 2000" page does it state that Medway is no longer part of Kent (I suggest giving that article a read)? This makes the whole premise of your edits false. The very fact that under the Lieutenancies Act it remains in the county is legal evidence that this is indeed the case. And yet you call this an anachronism, that is your opinion, the law says otherwise.
The sentence is not informative or accurate and while sources are provided, they contradict what you are using them to claim. You cannot just claim an opinion is untouchable because you have a link to any old random webpage.
The guidelines you cite over disambiguation state;
For localities unambiguously located within a town/city settlement (according to reliable, external sources) "placename, town/city" is used. For example, within the borough of Milton Keynes, for localities in the defined new city area "placename, Milton Keynes" is used, as with Bradwell, Milton Keynes. Localities within the borough but outside the city area continue to be disambiguated by ceremonial county, as with Olney, Buckinghamshire.
It references towns and cities. Medway is neither a town or city but a conurbation and unitary authority and thus comparing it to towns and cities such as Leeds, Plymouth, or Milton Keynes is erroneous. In fact the guideline further goes on to state that only in cases where further disambiguation is required (so more than one place with that name in the same county/town) then authorities can be used. The places you have been changing the names of do not require this level of disambiguation. Disambiguation is about separating places with the same name, there are no other Chathams in Kent, not assigning geographical allegiances. Chatham is part of the Medway unitary yes, but it is also a town in Kent, I don't understand the problem with this concept. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered carefully what you had done, and I have restored to the position before your reverts. I have done this as you were reverting fairly strongly, removing sourced information. We need to have a discussion about this to see how we can move forward and find the best solution. I have this page watchlisted so we can talk here or you can ping me on my talkpage. Regards SilkTork✔Tea time10:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree Martin. I couldn't believe how much of a sweeping change was done with zero discussion with editors concerned with the subject. It is however correct of me to revert the articles to their original state and I take issue with this being called disruptive when it is actually Wikipedia guideline on contentious edits. As I have said above it is SilkTork's responsibility to show his opinion and changes are correct, because the citations do not state what he is saying. The changes were not done with consensus and must be removed and only reinserted once you have demonstrated there is a consensus to do so. That a statement has a citation is irrelevant if said statement is not even referenced in the citation! ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather careful not to call either of you gentlemen disruptive. I would suggest however that fledgling edit war is an accurate description of the events. I have created a section on the Rochester talk page for this discussion, perhaps moving there will draw in all concerned editors? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure that's the best place for this discussion, at the least it would probably be a good idea to link to it from more local articles such as Medway or Kent talk pages where there will be editors with greater local knowledge. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As this seems to be the place where the discussion is taking place, may I add an opinion before someone does it for me.
Technically User:SilkTork is correct, this is a change that needs to be made to comply with a flawed convention.
The text that User:SilkTork has added to many pages is correct and should stand.
Providing, that users can still search on the term Wigmore, Kent and Upnor, Kent and these pages exist as redirects my principal concern is addressed, so I will stand on the sidelines and hold folks coats as they slug it out.
Where the page is stored is immaterial providing it is properly indexed.
The user experience of reading a page with a heading that is artificial is less than perfect, and i think it is this part of the rule that needs to be addressed. Does user experience mean less or more than administrative tidyness- that is an issue.
Any other fact on a page must be supported by a verifiable reference- this one doesn't. In the two examples I have given only national estate agent use the Upnor, Medway notation. Vision of Britain has had to address the issue. It Googles on both- but Titles on Upnor, Kent. An issue.
It is not just Gillingham Dorset/Kent- or Rainham Essex/Kent that are possible cases for exception, for decades Rochester, Kent has been in use to distinguish it from Rochester, New York (which is marginally bigger) and the amusing distinction between Chatham, Kent and Chatham-Kent the unitary authority in Kent county, Ontario. I would suggest that historical precedent is an issue that really only affects UK unitaries and this was not taken into account sufficiently when the convention was formulated.
I was hoping you could reread the press release regarding the naming of eLISA/NGO (Press release: 9th LISA sypmosium). You are quite correct, it does indeed say that eLISA = NGO, but that (I believe) is just to state that the design for eLISA is the same as proposed to ESA as NGO. However, if you look through the text you see that eLISA is used preferentially, that it is the eLISA collaboration, and the name NGO only appears in a footnote. I think that adds up to them changing the name back to something LISA-based, which makes sense, as NGO is not a good name, whilst LISA has historical precedence and connection to LISA Pathfinder. Since the main reason for the mission not being selected was perceived technological risks, it would be logical that they wish to make the connection to the proof-of-concept mission. Of course, that is all my opinion, which would not justify reverting the article; however, I do think that the press release form the LISA Symposium backs me up. BobQQ (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just yank that whole sidebox with the flags in the instrument section? Nothing like it appears in any of the other rover articles. It's only going to be a target of endless vandalism anyway. All of the participating countries are listed in the appropriate areas. It looks more like something you would find in an Olympics article. Just a thought. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff)09:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there,
what was the point of reverting the SABRE (rocket engine) page back to an edit with dated information? Doesn't seem very constructive to just delete it. If you don't approve the way the new source has been added it might be more appropriate for you to edit it, so that no one will lose time looking for it once again, and the page will remain up to date. I'll reinstate the new version of that paragraph if you agree. We can then move on from there. Or if you prefer, you can write it all over yourself.
Cheers,
--Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You posted material in violation of copyright (read it), it is the responsibility of editors to remove illegal text. I was being constructive in removing it, and it is not my responsibility to rework the text to make it legal. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't quotes considered fair use? I'd add that when reverting because of copyright concerns it's good practice to inform the original editor so that he/she may modify it accordingly and that the edit isn't lost (your revert might also be wrong). Maybe read the article once again yourself. For the future I would suggest to you Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (read it). Reverting drives away editors, so please keep that in mind if you love Wikipedia.
I agree that the paragraph was kind of sloppy, the point was to start a constructive process that moved the page forward (usually better than going backwards). Cheers, --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You copied everything, not just quotes. Do not quote me pages that are not policies like they mean anything, WP:COPYVIO is clear that copyright violations must be reverted. I do not care if I "drive away" people who infringe other people's creative rights. You cannot post copyright infringement and expect it to remain in place. ChiZeroOne (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You need a break my friend, you are not enjoying this anymore. Since this appears to be your only goal, here you go: you are absolutely right. "Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work”, Albert Einstein --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NASA article doesn't call it a "rogue planet", it just says it has a rogue planetary orbit (by definition being in orbit means it can't be a rogue planet). Again, this is just imprecise media language for the general public. The actual information provided is pretty clear that with the new orbit it does not meet the definition of a rogue planet, an unbound object. As that article states,
"Even more surprisingly, the latest Hubble images have allowed a team of astronomers to calculate the planet follows an unusual elliptical orbit that carries it on a potentially destructive path through the vast dust ring."
An elliptical orbit is a variety of bound orbit. Indeed the video on the Wired article clearly shows the proposed orbit is bound to Fomalhaut, just highly elliptical. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you *very much* for your comments - yes, after a closer look, I *entirely* agree with you that Fomalhaut b does not seem to be a Rogue planet by definition - (seems NASA and others may have used the term somewhat loosely) - OTOH, seems possible that Fomalhaut b *could* be an Exocomet, as suggested in the Wired (magazine) reference, I would think - in any regards - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
50.171.10.148 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Hello,
I started the ALSE article years ago and haven't looked at it since until today. I was happily amazed at the amount of detail and the links that have been added. You did a wonderful job. Thank you ! 50.171.10.148 (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please try to improve the prose in the Rosetta (spacecraft) article, where it says, "an obelisk was found that helped decipher the Rosetta Stone"? This is confusing to me. The Rosetta Stone was key to deciphering Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I didn't see this mentioned. Instead, I saw something that mentioned "decipher the Rosetta Stone". Without the context, I wouldn't know why it would be important to decipher the Rosetta Stone.
This confusion led me to the Wikipedia article on the Philae obelisk, where I learned that part of the Rosetta Stone had been lost over the centuries since its creation, and text found at Philae helped fill in the part that had been lost.
I accept that the story is more complicated than I originally understood. Could you please try to improve the prose here so it is easier for people to understand? For example: "The Rosetta Stone provided the same text in three languages, Ancient Greek, ... and Egyptian hieroglyphs. As such, it represented a major breakthrough in the modern ability to read the ancient Egyptial hieroglyphs. An obelisk found at Philae provided another version of essentially the same text, which further contributed to ... ."
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory. Since you had some involvement with the Next Gravitational-Wave Observatory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. (I know you already have participated in the discussion, but I'm adding this notification since I had not done so yet.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following a edit you made to the Manchester Metrolink wikipedia page on 17th August 2014, I would like to enquire how you know that Manchester Metrolink Airport line will run to Crumpsall in 2017 and cite your references.
Many thanks,
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight#Retirement of project member WD Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I don't oppose your removal of that paragraph, possibly it could be amended but it was recently added and I'm not sure the contrast in naming with Manchester & Greater Manchester is particularly notable. However, I just wanted to make you aware that "London" is an official name for "Greater London". See the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 Schedule 1, where Greater London is listed simply as "London" (with the extent listed as Greater London). I believe this is for naming purposes, as the act later specifies that the regional development agencies are named per this schedule (I realise these no longer exist but it is nonetheless an example of legislation, and I don't think any current legislation refers to the regions). Also the ONS often uses "London" to refer to the region in statistical bulletins. Though "Greater London" as a legally defined area has existed long before this. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, ChiZeroOne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I just joined the spaceflight project and have been diligently working on early automatic spacecraft. Thank you for being an inspiration. I aim to earn a Space Barnstar someday! Neopeius (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I see you're an active editor and member of the Spaceflight Wikiproject. I’m working on a rough draft of a new article here [4] for my satellite communications company E-Space, which I hope to submit to the Articles for Creation queue because as an E-Space employee I have a COI and can’t publish it on Wikipedia myself. But since I can see that the queue is very long and I want to have the best possible chance of approval when it gets submitted there, I was wondering if you might be willing to have a look at the draft and point out anything that needs to be improved first?
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hi. You copied and pasted some text from BAE Systems Tempest for this article. As such, I respectfully suggest you should have made this clear in the edit summary. As is your edit summary makes it sound like entirely new content. See WP:COPYWITHIN - something to consider for future use of existing content in other articles. Mark83 (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against you adding a new image but why not a day one which people can actually see what's there? A night photo isn't appropriate for a lead DragonofBatley (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Would you be interested in forming WikiProject Jupiter? If so, please show your support by clicking on the link above!--Novus Orator 06:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight#Retirement of project member WD Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
