This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constellation program, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Constellation programWikipedia:WikiProject Constellation programTemplate:Wikipedia Constellation programConstellation program articles
The infobox needs an image. I can't find any images with suitably free license for reuse in Wikimedia. The first image here would be nice. Tayste (edits) 23:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to get a photo of it in orbit, but the orbit is decaying too soon. I had a possibility a few days ago, before I knew that it wasn't going to last long. The problem was that it was darker than 7th magnitude and was in the west about 30 minutes after sunset, so I figured that the sky would be too bright to photograph it, even with a time exposure and my fastest lens. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 19:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no issue with having a criticism section, I'm concerned that the article is becoming a bashing sessions simply because the media love bashing sections. I understand the astronomers' point of view, but having reflective objects in orbit is not a new phenomenon. I would like to suggest we trim it down a little to avoid WP:UNDUE. Caleb Scharf's comments feel especially sensationalistic. — Huntster (t@c) 00:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'd leave it at:
Some astronomers have criticised the act of placing such a reflective object in orbit, as it can interfere with astronomical observations. It has been described as an act of vandalism of the night sky, space graffiti, a publicity stunt, and "glittery space garbage".
I think that Easther's opinion seems to be the mainstream opinion. Scharf's "vermin in the pantry" part is an outlier, in the same way that Rocket Lab's "a bright symbol and reminder to all on Earth about our fragile place in the universe" claim is an outlier in the opposite direction. Scharf's comparison to a billboard on Mount Everest is probably mainstream though. I reverted the "vermin in the pantry" on editorial discretion that it's not very insightful. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we don't have to narrate how each unhappy astronomer insults the object. One or two sentences suffice. Pile on the refs. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}