Talk:List of Artemis missions

Table size

@Jadebenn: You made an unexplained removal of the custom font size for the wikitables in the article. The font size was to allow for a more compact table size that saves article space while presenting the same amount of information, especially for mobile readers. The § Logistics missions section especially benefits from a size truncation. Care to explain your motive behind this removal? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: I wasn't aware the size was intentional. It looks very small on desktop computers - hard to read. I thought it was a mistake. Feel free to undo any edits you feel are disruptive. I will be retiring for the night soon, and just wanted to "polish" the page before I went to sleep. It's very late in my timezone right now, so this will likely be the last message I'll post tonight.

By the by, I think it would be more logical to have all the "mainline" Artemis missions in one table, instead of splitting them out into crewed and uncrewed, seeing as how only two of them are planned to be uncrewed. CLPS and related programs are a different matter, of course. - Jadebenn (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: Sounds like a good idea. The original idea of the section was to make a distint section for Orion flights as a psuedo "Orion program" article of some sorts, but we could repurpose it into some sort of mainline mission section per your suggestion! It would make more sense, actually – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jadebenn: I've made some changes per your suggestion. Is it something along the lines of what you wanted? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: Yeah, the linked edit looks good. On a side note, I still think you should go with normal font size for the current revision. It's not consistent with other articles to have it smaller, and it makes it harder to read on desktop computers. - Jadebenn (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: I don't understand why these mission tables have to be so incredibly confusing and complicated. The {{TLS-H2}} series of templates were meant for the incredibly complex Timeline of spaceflight list series, not relatively simpler lists such as this one. I'm not sure why we have to essentially punish readers in this way, when we could have a much simpler and easier to comprehend presentation of the missions. Simplicity worked for List of Apollo missions and List of Space Shuttle missions; why can't simplicity work here? I'm invoking the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to preserve the status quo for now, so that a discussion can ensue without edit warring. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is no standards of a mission table. So, I thought that I would slap the {{TLS-H2}} to settle the dispute. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata T⁄S 09:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: I don't understand what "dispute" you were trying to resolve? The only thing that was being disputed on this page was font size, which is not anywhere near a justification for a complete replacement of the entire table... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, the way of using the table as a list of the missions is disputed. There must be a recommendation by Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight of using it as a list of the missions. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata T⁄S 07:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Focus

A Wikipedia List should be a list not an article copied/pasted from another article. WP:Stand-alone lists: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)."
Rowan Forest (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Yet List of Space Shuttle missions has context paragraphs and descriptions for each mission, and it's a featured article. Your argument has no basis, because nowhere does it say in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists that editors are not allowed to have prose paragraphs. Many lists often benefit from contextual prose paragraphs, especially when they allow for citations to be displayed appropriately outside of a box or table – citations in which were mostly removed and were not rescued apart from a mere two, leaving this list mostly unverified when it was appropriately verified before. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Jadebenn and Soumya-8974 for assistance and opinions here. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Unlike Artemis program, the Space Shuttle actually flew many missions. Taking that in consideration, your walls of text overwhelmed the amount of prose of the existing List of Space Shuttle flights. A Wikipedia list is a list, not a copy/paste of another article with the addition of 2 tables. Open an RFC or an ANI. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Since you seem to be going incredibly technical about the title of the page, maybe the compromise here would be to simply rename it "Missions of the Artemis program", so that it is no longer technically a "list" and we can rescue the content that was deleted? Otherwise, calling single paragraphs "walls of text" is unreasonable... Lying about the page having had more prose text than List of Space Shuttle missions is also unreasonable (506 words vs 660 words even without mission descriptions in "Notes" cells in § Shuttle flights). – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:Stand-alone lists: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)." We do not need 2 identical articles about Artemis program. This is what I meant about WP:Competence. Again: file a RfC or an ANI if you disagree with Wikipedia guidelines. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: Who said anything about making two identical articles? One's clearly about the Artemis program as a whole and the other is a sub-page specifically about its missions. Since you completely ignored my first attempt at a compromise, I've come up with a second proposal: a merge proposal with the Artemis program article. How about this? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 17:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be some personal history here I don't want to get tangled into. However, I would rather not merge the article. That's just my two cents. - Jadebenn (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jadebenn and Soumya-8974: As long as no personal attacks are involved, I don't see this as anything other than a discussion on the content of this article. Soumya, I saw that you went ahead and restored the page despite this ongoing discussion, though I am thankful that readers aren't being deprived of the information at this moment, at least. Shall we assume that there is a consensus here against moving or merging the page, or should we still consider it? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 06:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Do not merge: It has many useful information. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 09:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: @Jadebenn: @PhilipTerryGraham: There was no "merge" and am not proposing any. The vast text here and the references were copied/pasted the Artemis program article, duplicating that article which is the main problem. There is nothing to "rescue", and there is absolutely no need to have 2 articles about the same program, especially when this one is only a list (see: WP:Stand-alone lists) to clarify. Walls of text on a list are not in the guidelines, but in special circumstances, an introduction is useful.

Now, a list of the Artemis missions + the supporting missions and launches is very useful, I do not argue that, and the table constructed here is brilliant and useful. There will be at least 37 launches, so this list will grow. Be patient. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: If there is a consensus against merging, then there is logically a consensus that List of Artemis missions and Artemis program are not duplicates. Ideally they should co-exist with the former being a sub-article of the latter. "Walls of text on a list are not in the guidelines", and therefore exist in many featured lists reviewed by the community and deemed to be perfectly fine. It should be noted that, per summary style, the "Missions" section in "Artemis program" should be truncated as a summary of this page, but this has not been done yet because of this dispute over the deletion of content that was mostly original, and tailored to make sense on this page, despite the claim that most of it was copied from Artemis program. I'll fall back on my first proposed compromise, because no other compromise as been proposed as of yet, and it hasn't been given the consideration that the second proposal got – moving the page to "Missions of the Artemis program", so that the page is no longer technically a "list", and the chief concern can be reasonably resolved. However, if this compromise cannot be agreed upon, it's 2 v 1 (Souyma and I) in favour of the status quo. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand and fully support creating a WP:Stand-alone list as there will be at least 37 flights, and many more if the Artemis program is funded through Artemis mission #8. I am not against its current introduction length or adding helpful images, but the exaggerated length of the prose defeats the focus and purpose of what a list actually is, in addition that it duplicates the information already existing in Wikipedia: Same facts, same references, same missions, different title. That doesn't fly. Now, please explain what is your purpose and benefit to Wikipedia by creating another nearly identical article on the Artemis program: "Missions of Artemis program", while keeping in mind that besides the Artemis program, every Artemis mission in development already has its own page (Artemis 1, Artemis 2 and Artemis 3) so I don't see any reason to duplicate vast text —whether in a stand-alone list or in separate article— on the exact same subject. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: So would something along the lines of List of Space Shuttle missions be okay with you? There's some descriptive info, but it's the absolute minimum needed to provide context. - Jadebenn (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"2 vs. 1" means absolutely nothing when defending a List that is not a list because this is not a democratic vote. It is about the guidelines on what a list is, and about avoiding massive duplication in prose. Next: If you want to evolve this "list" into an article focused on the missions, the parent article (Artemis program) Missions section, indeed could be truncated as a summary of this page. That does address the massive duplication. In other words, the Artemis program page would remain the parent article dealing with financing, program history, supporting programs, etc, and would present a summary or table of the planned missions plus a hatnote directing to wherever. That would take care of the massive and unacceptable duplication here, which has been my concern all along. Therefore 1) I'll leave it up to you to chose and move the title to the effect of "Missions of the Artemis program" as you suggest, and recover the information I deleted; 2) edit the Artemis program#Missions section to craft a summary of the missions per the guidelines. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rowan Forest: The whole point of me bringing up who was in favour of the status quo was a matter of consensus, not voting per se. I was pointing out that there was only ever one editor here advocating removal of content, and therefore there's no support for the change. Since you now seem content with the status quo, I no longer see a need to move it to "Missions of the Artemis program", unless other editors insist on a need.

@Jadebenn: If we go the way of List of Space Shuttle missions, flow-on sentences such as "Crewed Artemis 4–6 missions, launched yearly between 2025 and 2027, would test in situ resource utilization and nuclear power on the lunar surface with a reusable lander, in preparation for Artemis 8." would not be possible, and you'd end up with "Description" cells that essentially repeat the same information, and thus use more text. Prose paragraphs are more capable of summarising multiple missions in single, short sentences. Like Rowan stated, this list will eventually grow – and maybe then it'll be more efficient to present information in the table itself, but we're not there yet. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

In List of Apollo missions, the non-Apollo tests (SA-1 to AS-105) are enlisted with the Apollo missions. I prefer to have something like, "From 2010 to 2019, the components of the Orion spacecraft were tested in uncrewed flights. The Artemis 1 will test the capabilities of the Space Launch System..." in the "Tests" section. Then you have a table, which shows the tests:

Mission	Patch	Launch	Crew	Launch vehicle	Outcome	Duration
Pad Abort-1		6 May 2010, 13:03 UTC White Sands LC-32E	—	Orion Launch Abort System	Success	95 seconds
Exploration Flight Test-1		5 December 2014, 12:05 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-37	—	Delta IV Heavy (Delta 369)	Success	4 hours 24 minutes
Ascent Abort-2		2 July 2019, 11:00 UTC Cape Canaveral SLC-46	—	Orion Abort Test Booster	Success	3 minutes 13 seconds
Artemis 1		TBD, 2020-2021 Kennedy LC-39B	—	SLS Block 1 Crew	Planned	~25d

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 08:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Orphaned references in List of Artemis missions

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Artemis missions's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Artemis home":

• From Artemis program: "NASA: Moon to Mars". NASA. Retrieved 19 May 2019.
• From Orion (spacecraft): NASA. "NASA: Moon to Mars". NASA. Archived from the original on 5 August 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"Logistics missions" table is completely obsolete

The table comes from a single 2018 graphic that predates the award of the Starship HLS contract and basically assumes the NASA reference design for HLS. Furthermore the table is highly repetitious. I think we need to alter it. Perhaps list "HLS mission set" in the main table, and then describe an HLS mission set" as either an "HLS delivery set" (for a new HLS) or an "HLS replenishment set" (to reuse an HLS that is already at the Gateway). These mission sets in turn will vary depending on the type of HLS if there is more than one type. For Starship HLS, a delivery set is one HLS launch plus multiple launches of fuel to LEO, and a replenishment set is not defined yet. -Arch dude (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"ARTEMIS SEVEN"

Binding with the SPACE MARINE And ASIANDATING... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:171C:2E6B:DDF0:8833:E1E1:9C8E:31C3 (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Rescue potential ?

Previously , if the ascent engine failed on the Moon , two astronauts would have been left to die Surely, fifty years on without a political cold war deadline to meet , there is now provision for a rescue mission? If not, why not? 92.40.219.52 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Lists of CLPS missions

Currently both the List of Artemis missions article and the Commercial Lunar Payload Services article include lists of CLPS missions. It would be convenient if the list were maintained in a single place and {{excerpt}}-ed into the other. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 03:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)