Talk:List of spacewalks since 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of spacewalks since 2015 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Astro Christina (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Article outdated[edit]

We had 3 spacewalks in 2017 already. At 2017_in_spaceflight, people keep track of them. Unfortunately here the table format is different. I suggest to use the table format from the yearly spaceflight articles, then we can just copy it and don't have to manually add spacewalks in more than one article. --mfb (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb: I recently came across this page and realized how out of date it is. Currently in the process of updating it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of spacewalks since 2015. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808173330/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/EVA/EVA_totals_table.html to http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/EVA/EVA_totals_table.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 13:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of spacewalks since 2015. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 12:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Wikipedia article edited from space[edit]

According to this tweet , today this article became the first Wikipedia article edited from space; the edit in question is here. Something something small steps. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be undisputed so I added it to her page right after the note about the first all female spacewalk. A nice twist, and something that deserves to be noted. Jardenberg (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy violation - FROM SPACE![edit]

Hi,

i'd like to point out that no matter how awesome the edit from space seems, it constitutes a violation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

How do we deal with it?

MikeTango (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She used the cited source to make corrections to the article, making it more accurate. I don't think this is the reason those policies were put in place. The intent of the policy means more than following it to the letter.

--Darenwelsh (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources work. Since the edit is well worded, accurate, and functional to improve the encyclopedia, in this historic instance "ignore all rules" seems more than adequate. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule, even, to ignore: editing with a conflict of interest is not disallowed. While there's certainly better practices that could have been followed, like making it extra-clear that she has a direct interest in the subject matter, the edit made is fundamentally in line with policy, as outlined here by Darenwelsh. Anyone who's concerned can follow any further edits and intervene as needed; the relevant approach here is less ignoring rules and more assuming good faith. Astronauts help drive knowledge with exploration and (zero-G) experimentation; cooperation with our more documentary contribution to knowledge is a welcome partnership that we should encourage. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor would also qualify as a subject-matter expert. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I added the COI tag as a joke.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland, okay, enjoyed the sense of humor. Many editors would have added it as a serious violation and soon we'd have RfC's and deletionists swarming the place. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nihiltres , I could have not said it better. All of us waiting for this historic edit were very worried bite-y patrollers would come by and revert, claiming original research, COI, etc. This is why I created her account and added the confirmed flag. I ran this by other admins and we all agreed the “gravity” (pun intended!) of the situation warranted this. Christina did something very special for us, and I hope she continues to contribute. We are a bit short on editors who are astronauts, to say the least :) I also think joke edits are not welcome in the mainspace, but if you honestly felt there was a COI problem then that’s understandable. Fortunately the edit wasn't reverted, the COI tag was removed, and I see a lot of warm welcomes at User talk:Astro Christina. So I think it went pretty well. Thanks to all for helping us look good, sincerely. — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic that, given the claim the spacewalk involved "routing a cable on the Destiny Lab module" is not supported by the cited source, in any other context the edit would probably have been undone for a lack of verifiability and the editor responsible scolded with a template for adding unsourced material. – Teratix ₵ 13:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]