Talk:List of PSLV launches

Orphaned references in List of PSLV launches

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 PSLV launches'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 "timesofindia.indiatimes.com":

• From Mars Orbiter Mission: "Mars mission: Isro performs last orbit-raising manoeuvre". The Times of India. Press Trust of India. 16 November 2013. Retrieved 16 November 2013.
• From Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle: "ISRO's record satellites' launch: 10 top facts - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 2017-02-15.
• From Bangalore: "Law and order tops new chief Mirji's list". The Times of India, Bangalore. 3 May 2011. Retrieved 9 May 2011.

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⚡ 10:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Individual masses of ride-sharing payloads and users

New chart is welcome change but payload masses of all ridesharing payloads need to kept in record just like in old list over at PSLV. For PSLV bulk ride-shares are very common and important so separate details of primary, secondary and cubesats must be kept separate and total payload mass can be mentioned in the end. Individual payload masses are tricky as sometimes adapter weight is counted in sometimes it isn't like for Quadpack deployers, making the summed up 'total' different, but it is needed to differ between a cubesat and microsat and some payloads are so obscure that PSLV page was their only record on wiki. These small payloads matter a lot, take those SpaceBEEs for example! Perhaps use of Dual Launch Adapter needs a mention in notes as well as that thing alone weighs ~250 kg. User column would be great for non governmental commercial payloads, the use of flags as it was done earlier is just outdated. Ohsin (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your desire to include the information. However, I have two problems. The first is that the individual masses are to much information for each launch. The important information is the total mass. If people are curious about the individual masses of the payloads, they're should be a link to an article that includes that information already. The second problem is that that style of chart design was unique to that particular format. Several other list of rocket launches from a variety of families, before any work on their old format, had total masses for multiple payload launches. If the removal of flags or other actions are desired to bring this page more in line with other pages is an option, I would happily agree. However chaining this particular page so that particular information exists here that would be unique to lists of rocket launches is not something I would agree with. UnknownM1 (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Chart type is irrelevant here this one will do fine and can support individual mass. That too much information was being handled so far and more information better it is, add total in the end. Keep in mind for Indian space activities records are being poorly maintained even wiki articles are not good enough so at least maintain whatever there is in good shape. This LV carries ride-shares a lot with Indian payload usually being primary and not like one or two major spacecrafts going up that others are used to, so can't be treated like that. Press kits usually give payload mass info or we source citations from somewhere else or leave it blank or with '??' when it is not available. Complaining about 'too much work' without respecting work others put in and practically blanking out original is not very nice I suggest a revert back on PSLV page too till this place gets up to speed. I don't like notable launches here though, they should be on PSLV page where they were and need more trimming honestly. On a side note on list of Ariane-5 launches it would be ISRO instead of IRSO. Thanks. Ohsin (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion. I do not want to complain about "too much work" and I actually really respect the work others have put into this pae and other pages. You have a couple of different suggestions here and I can do my best to fix the issues addressed. The Ariane-5 list can be corrected right now and the masses can be corrected here as well. This page is fine as a separate item, as yourself pointed out, and the notable launches section is common to a lot of launch history pages. I do however think that they need to be cleaned up and trimmed. UnknownM1 (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A huge problem with new chart style is on planned launches there is no provision for payload mass. That needs fixing badly. on GSLV page it is now in 'Orbit' column! Ohsin (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Notable missions rationale

Can anyone give me a rational for the reason why most of the current Notable missions are included? It seems like most are just descriptions that can be moved into their respective remarks section. Specially, C2, C7, arguably C21, C22, C29, and C36. I think the information in those sections should be moved down and trimmed, but kept. Flight hardware changes are not noteworthy to an average viewer. The launch failures, highly publicized launches, or launches of historical significance are more what that section means. Cheers! UnknownM1 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

PSLV campaign pages were never maintained properly unfortunately and that section on PSLV page became a dumping ground for anything that was remotely remarkable. I agree that information needs to be kept, trimmed and moved to remarks. Ohsin (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Country flags ahead of satellite names.

Some listed satellites have more than two flags ahead of them to denote collaborations perhaps but that is interpretative as some satellites have more than two countries involved, haven't checked but it could also be due to issues like conflict between manufacturer/owners/operators of spacecraft as well. Should these be streamlined and simply the country of registration be used instead?  Ohsin  19:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)