Talk:CollectSPACE

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

A couple of thoughts[edit]

The list format of the timeline isn't really helping the style of the article. It could just be renamed "History of Collectspace," and the bullet points taken out.

As much as I like the website, I can't agree that it's of middle importance in the history of space exploration generally. I'm revising it to low importance. (Sorry....) MLilburne 07:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the list format used to give a timeline for cS could be converted to a simple narrative. I can make these edits. As a researcher and writer, I have to place it at middle importance, if only for its utility as a fact-checking resource. In point of fact, the site acts as a valuable check on factual errors that sometimes pop up in the Wiki (and other online encylcopedias like astronautix.com) itself .

I'm a researcher too (doctoral student actually), so I take your point. But I think that while it's important TO the history of space exploration (as a source), it isn't important IN the history of space exploration, which is what the template is looking at. Mid-importance subjects include the James Webb Space Telescope, Saturn IB and Sub-orbital spaceflight, and I just can't consider collectSPACE as being in that category. MLilburne 16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But by your lights then cS actually belongs in another category of Wiki articles. Why don't we make this happen, instead of recommending a downgrade in a Wiki category to which it does not properly belong? Do you have any ideas? The message boards are exceedingly valuable for the burgeoning field of space memorabilia and for researchers; the spaceflight history discussion boards are essential for at least this author, especially as I begin another project. Writers and researchers should know about this online resource. The Wiki nearly ensures that they will find it. See also, as an example of recent academic interest, Margaret A. Weitekamp, curator, Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum, "Witnesses to History: Space Memorabilia as Evidence of the Space Program's Impact on American Culture," at the NASM/NASA conference on the Societal Impact of Space Exploration, Washington, D.C., Sept. 19-21, 2006 (proceedings forthcoming).

This is a good idea. There is a Wikipedia category for internet forums, which I'll add this article to; however, I'm not sure whether or not there's another WikiProject that it would fit into. Sorry that I'm not able to be more helpful. You might want to try asking for ideas on one of the Wikipedia advice pages. MLilburne 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CollectSPACE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]