Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProject Space and WikiProject Astronomy

I suggest that we have a single Wikipedia:Wikiproject Astronomy and the rest as its sister projects. It can be a really huge one if we want. We can make the project template and etc.. Looking forward to start on this one. :) --Electron Kid 02:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It will be a constant debate as to whether Portal:Astronomy will be the main topic or Portal:Space. I believe that Portal:Space should attempt to organize all data not covered by the science of Astronomy. This includes Exploration, Politics, Space Flights, etc. As such, I believe a list of Portals should be developed that fall under the scope of Portal:Space. See project page for current list of Space related Projects (please add any if you know of missing) --Exodio 02:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support it with your vote if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang

would you like to create certified articles in science? -- Zondor 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote if you would like to see it improved on the article improvement drive!--Fenice 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

The board needs scientist from a lot of different projects maybe there is one from SPACE to join the group. --Stone 13:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Saturn

I'm part of the Wikipedia Version 0.5 review team. Please improve the Saturn article, remove the cleanup template, because it is the only Start-rated article in Version 0.5. Thanks. NCurse _work 09:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiCast

Hi, As someone connected with the WikiCast project I felt your wikiproject might be intrested in contributing.

WikiCast is a net radio station for 'free' content.

It's wiki is at : http://wiki.epstone.net/wikicast/Main_Page

WikiCast needs content, and I was wondering if you had any suggestions or contributions?

WikiCast plans to have a reasonably serious astronomy spot called 'Nocturne' Any budding Moore or Sagan here? ShakespeareFan00 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi ShakespeareFan00 - WikiProject Space is not heavily populated at the moment. It was basically non-existent, most folks interested more in WikiProject Astronomy. You might want to try MilleauRekiir or George J. Bendo - I have seen their names pop up on a couple of Space related sites and they show a high degree of knowledge. --Exodio 22:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical subjects

Please review Special:Contributions/Mlhooten and Special:Contributions/166.82.166.38. Uncle G 14:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What is supposed to be reviewed? The Astrosciences additions?--Exodio 14:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see what you mean. I think all the pages categorized into Astroscience should be have the statements removed until this is further explored --Exodio 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Satallites Footer

Is there a reason why they are not in the same format?

• ie.
  • Satellites of Pluto Remove
  • Saturn's natural satellites Remove
  • Saturn (satellites) Keep

I vote for the format, "Planet (satellites)", so there is not a use of the apostrophe 's'. Thanks, CarpD (^_^) 8/27/06 7:30pm central time zone.

I think it should be "Natural satellites of Saturn" and "Artificial satellites of Earth" possibly. Or "Satellites of Saturn (natural) " and "Satellites of Earth (artificial)" --Exodio 00:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Space science

• Look at what has happened to space science! Should we really have content such as "Animals On Other Planets proposed neologism"? Uncle G 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles listed for deletion

• Twotino (AfD discussion)
• 1826 Miller (AfD discussion)

The above article has beem listed at AFD. Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 15:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism/POV-pushing at Langley Research Center

There seem to have been a bunch of garbled, semi-literate edits over at Langley Research Center recently, pushing a "moon landing was faked" POV. I was tempted simply to delete it all, but there might actually be some parts that are worth salvaging, and I don't feel qualified to judge which ones (if any). If there's a more appropriate sub-project for me to take this to, please let me know. Xtifr _tälk 16:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Space exploration vs. Portal:Spaceflight

I'm not convinced there should be a Spaceflight portal, since the overlap with Space exploration is huge; perhaps Portal:Spacecraft would be more appropriate? there the focus would clearly be on the mechanics of spaceflight, without having the overlap of the exploration.. notice the selected Biography in Portal:Spaceflight. Mlm42 11:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Black hole

Black hole is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 16:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Moon

I came across this as I was tagging articles as {{moon-stub}}s. It currently has only one member, but I don't want to see this project become inactive and then become MfD fodder. Hence this post here, to raise a bit of interest. MER-C 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Olympus Mons

Hello, I just nominated the Olympus Mons article for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive because I think that that article deserves to be class A. I thought this nomination might be of some interest to you all. Thanks! S.dedalus 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Space/Categories

Does anyone use Template:WikiProject Space/Categories? Given the category update work that I and other people have done, it already looks out-of-date. It is also incredibly unwieldly to maintain. Would anyone object if I nominated it for deletion? If not, I will nominate it for deletion on 14 Dec 2006. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 19:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of response, I will nominate the template for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible Astronomy Featured Topic

(This message copied to WP:Astronomical objects, WP:Space, and WP:Astronomy)

Hey! I was looking around for groups of articles to nominate as a Featured Topic, and I came across Upsilon Andromedae, b, c, and d. All four of these articles are GA class, and together fulfill every requirement of a FT, except that none of them are Featured Articles themselves. If one of them, preferably Upsilon Andromedae itself, was promoted to Featured Article, then the Topic as a whole would most likely pass FTC. So, if anyone wants to shoot for that, have at it! Also, if any members of this Wikiproject know of a group of articles that fits the criteria, then please nominate them! Thank you! --PresN 18:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review - new

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 02:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hellø!!

I enlisted myself in WikiProject_Space for a cleanup/coordination effort of foremost astronomy, although non-astronomical space issues will get the benefits (?) of my poking around. I wish (and probably I'll doitmyslef):

• A central link apparatus (template, transclusion or so), that enables anyone entering into any Space related portal/wikiproject a navigation box where to find the relevant portal/wikiproject/wikiproject talk,
• A centalized astronewspaper,
• A more specific description on scope of topics (s.a.f.ex. not Astrology) we take care of,
• and what measures to take in order to coordinate the activity
• some more...

Said Rursus 12:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC) before going on.

Category:Space Launches by Month/Year

Can someone please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space exploration#Category:Space Launches by Month/Year. Thanks. --WikiSlasher 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

ESA images

I keep wanting to upload ESA images to wikimedia, and I keep getting put off - there is no licence tag for them on the scroll down list like there is for NASA, even though the ESA website seems quite laid back with copyright, am I allowed to use them, what licence tag do I use, where is more info... help :), sbandrews 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't as it's non-commercial use only and these may be deleted without warning. MER-C 09:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Hello! This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: {{km to mi}}, {{mi to km}}, {{m to ft}}, {{ft to m}}, {{km2 to mi2}}, {{mi2 to km2}}, {{m2 to ft2}}, and {{ft2 to m2}}. Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject. The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.

Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Veryvery good!! Just one question: is there anywhere a template list listing and explaining these conversion templates (example here), more than just the automatic Category:Conversion templates? Because, then we can make a link from Wikipedia:WikiProject Space and all subwikiprojects to that template list. Rursus 17:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not. Not yet, anyway, but it is the goal of the WP:TSP project to create such a reference book.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll do one provisional and very temporary at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space/phys unit templs, that the WP:TSP may reuse, move or reject by own judgement. Soon. Rursus 14:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Rursus 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As everybody with eyes on stalks have seen (snails and such), the chaosion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation have produced a template for navigation between various Space related projects. See right!

Observe right of Space (coordinating)! There is a templates link, which points to a repository of links to various template documentation pages over most space related templates. (Space, the final frontier ... etc) Rursus 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging projects

I just discovered how many wikiprojects there are in this space (sorry for the pun). I think we should merge some of these project pages together. There isn't enough critical mass of interested users to support so many individual projects. Many of these projects overlap; it makes it hard to discuss things because many topics don't fit neatly into a single project. Some of these projects only have 1-2 declared members, and membership overlaps anyway even for the larger ones. We've been discussing space probes at WP Astronomy and I just now realized there are separate projects on WP Space exploration, WP Launch vehicles, WP Space missions, WP Unmanned space missions, WP Timeline of spaceflight, WP Human spaceflight, ... where the discussion would be relevant. Comments? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-25 02:28Z

This is precisely the reason for the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation. At the moment it is still a problem, but we are working on it! :) Mlm42 17:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. Submillimeter pointed me to the page too. I missed that huge banner at the top of this talk page, doh... —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-27 11:25Z

Soyuz TMA

The manned spaceflights of the Soyuz TMA's to the ISS need some serious cleanup. {{Infobox Space mission}} needs to be added to many of them (because they use html infoboxes now), and a lot of the prose is still written like the things are up in space. Lead-in's are missing, all that sort of stuff. It's an easy job and I fixed a couple of infoboxes already, but since i'm not really a WP Space editor, someone else might care to take a look as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings → Apollo missions tracked by independent parties- proposed by user:ScienceApologist. 132.205.44.134 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Pluto spacecraft, Template:Neptune spacecraft, Template:Uranus spacecraft

Template:Pluto spacecraft has been proposed for deletion at WP:TFD by user:Cop 633. 132.205.44.134 23:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Satellite → (multiple possibilities)

Apparently "Satellite" was renamed Artificial Satellite at some point. 132.205.44.134 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Pear review request

I listed an image of the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 taken by the Hubble Space Telescope to see if it should be a featured picture candidates or not, It is listed here Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Dark matter your input is appreciated. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 04:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

pages that require infobox work

Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Infoboxes is a list of pages that have raw infobox tables instead of using templated infoboxes. If you feel like fixing one of them, please do so. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

EVA template:in space

I twiddled with Template:in space to add an "eva=yes" parameter which changes the text of the info box and includes a link to the EVA article. Is there some clever code that could be added to the EVA article so that, whenever any use of Template:in space has an "eva=yes", a message box appears on the EVA article linking to the current spacewalker? (Sdsds - Talk) 18:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Mercury Program

Template:Mercury Program is up for deletion at WP:TFD, because it overlaps with Template:Project Mercury. 132.205.44.134 01:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

a bunch of things were prodded because of transwiki to wiktionary on June 3rd

Chasma, Dorsum, Flexus, Flumen, Fluctus, Linea, Macula (planetary geology), Mensa (geology), Rupes, Tholus. Personally, I feel they should be redirected somewhere... 132.205.44.134 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for GeoHack rewrite or Geohack like extension for Space / Mars

Hello, I've just joined this group. I have a long term interest in Space and am very familiar with many of the issues. I started a Source Forge project [1]. The project direction is under review, but it will probably end up writing any extra needed extensions for Space / Mars / Planetary pages. Could GeoHack (for example [2] ) be used to spit out location resources for Space / Planetary locations ? This could eventually include other planets and locations in the heavens (an ascension/declination), but I suggest it is intially focussed on Mars, the nearest planet and with a long/lat system similiar to Earth. NASA WorldWind can already open these locations for Mars, as can Google Mars. All the main space agencies have databases that can be opened using a link to give a particular location (for example [3] ). There are probably other resources. The uses for this are obvious for region descriptions and locations like the Mars Exploration Rover landing sites, for example. A use I want to put it to is to have definitions for particular images, with the article having the image number title (for example [4] ). A Mars Geohack would then allow easy cross correlation with other Orbiter images ! I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is on having an encyclopaedic definition for a particular image ... but why not ? DJ Barney 14:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

the subject/title for a wiki page has to be notable - i dont think an image number as a title/subject will pass that test, sbandrews (t) 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. So what do you think to the Geohack idea ? DJ Barney 23:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality

It's a featured list, but there are still I think some serious definitional issues that remain to be worked out. Please see my comments at Talk:Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality. Thanks.--Pharos 06:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing redundent sections

I intend to remove such redundant sections from mission related articles. Would there be any objection to this? A new section is unnecessary for a sentence (OK its actually half a sentence) -- Cat ^chi? 16:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally support this kind of edit. First, because the sections aren't necessary. Second, because they add layout clutter. Third, because I don't like wikilinks in section titles. Converting these to be bold-but-not-section headings solves all these issues! (sdsds - talk) 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Missing Articles

I just thought I'd mention that User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Astronomy has a great list of missing space related articles and might be a good place to look if anyone is interested in helping to create new articles. Vsst 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential consolidation of some list articles

The following articles have a lot of overlap, and I wonder if there is scope for consolidation:

• List of planetary probes
• Timeline of Solar System exploration
• Timeline of artificial satellites and space probes
• List of probes by operational status
• List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969
• Timeline of the Space Race

It wouldn't surprise me much if there were other similar lists kicking around too. (If you know of any others, then maybe you could add them to Template:Space exploration lists and timelines.)

There has been some discussion about individual merge proposals on some of the talk pages of these articles, but none seems to be very actively progressing towards a conclusion, and none seems to be considering all of the above lists together. Because so many articles are affected, I'm bringing it here in case anyone wants to run with it. I certainly think that six articles is too many. The only article that I've had much to do with personally is List of planetary probes (which, incidentally, I think is misnamed). I believe that one is reasonably complete and accurate but I wouldn't know about the others. Thoughts anyone? Matt 01:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

I see another list has popped up now, again with very significant overlap:

• List of interplanetary voyages

Matt 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Space elevator FAR nomination

Space elevator has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Qblik talk 20:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Comet of 1882

Great Comet of 1882 is currently under review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If any members would like help keep this a good article please see the comments on the Good article review page. T Rex | talk 19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse and 28 August 2007 lunar eclipse

Are individual lunar eclipses notable enough that they should have individual Wikipedia articles?

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28 August 2007 lunar eclipse. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Peter G Werner 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert needed

List of private spaceflight companies is in need of help from someone who knows the subject well — Jack · talk · 21:27, Wednesday, 29 August 2007

Infobox

Hello there. Is there a version of Template:Infobox Space mission that would be appropriate for X-15 Flight 91 and similar articles? Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic space exploration topics
• List of basic aerospace topics
• List of basic astronomy topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

MESUR

MESUR (Mars Environmental Survey) program seems to be missing. 132.205.99.122 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delta-v (physics) for deletion

Delta-v (physics) has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics). A suggestion has been made to perhaps merge with Delta-v, the orbital dynamics article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Astrosociobiology at AFD

Astrosociobiology has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Surface features of celestial bodies

categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Astronomy collaboration of the week

Hi. I've noticed that the astronomy collaboration of the week, currently under the jurisdiction of the Astronomical objects project, has had the same collaboration since July 2006. I am therefore proposing that it be expanded to cover space as a general topic, and be moved to the jurisdiction of this WikiProject. Please discuss this proposal on the collaboration talk page. Thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again a good idea I think. Takes somewhat after the idea of Taskforces in that some procedures should be centralized, whereas groups of editors can be decentralized. Moving COTW to WP:SPACE and deal with mulitple types of space related articles seems like a good way to keep more people involved, making for a more stable procedure. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented the proposal, so the collaboration is now this project's responsibility. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Collaboration. I've suspended the collaboration for the rest of the week to allow it to be brought up to standard (there isn't much point in having a collaboration for two days), and set an automatic update sequence, so it will be less likely to stay on the same article for a year and a half, like the last one. Maybe we should distribute links around the portals. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The History of the Names of the Planets

The history is screwed up. On the saturn page it says saturn is the greek name when it is the roman name.(also saturday comes from the god not the planet) not sure if it is wrong on others but i thought id pitch in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegendLiver (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 8

Apollo 8 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Proposal to merge Portal:Space exploration into Portal:Spaceflight

Hi, I have proposed that these two portals are merged, as there is too much overlap between them, and Space Exploration is being too general in its content. Please could you look at, and comment on the proposal, which is located here. I am posting this on the talk pages of all interested WikiProjects. All feedback is greatly appreciated. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to merge three child WikiProjects

Discussion is located on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page

I'm just notifying a couple of the parent projects of a proposal to merge WikiProject Space missions and WikiProject Space travellers into Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Spaceflight. Please leave comments and questions on the Human spaceflight project's talk page. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Solar System

Solar system portal has been listed on featured portal removal candidates list because it fails to be well-maintained. Please give your input at the removal page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Roche limit

Anyone here know what the Roche limit is? Roche limit has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 14

An IPer has added mulitple paragraphs of probably good information but with no refs, no external links, admitted personal accounts in the description line, and without good format. I marked it with 3 templates for immediate attention. If article not update by the IP editor or another wiki-editor in a reasonable amount of time I recommend all the updates be reverted. LanceBarber (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Article listed for deletion

• Solar eclipse of April 8, 2005 (AfD discussion)

There's opportunity for discussion of this article at AFD. Coffee4me (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

List of space telescopes

I should probably have mentioned a few days ago that List of space telescopes is a Featured List Candidate. Comments are welcome. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

List of space agencies

I'm currently rewriting List of space agencies such that it is actually a list, rather than a series of summary sections; see User:Mike Peel/List of space agencies. My plan is to get the list up to Featured List status. I have a few queries about the article, however, which I could do with some input on:

• Should just the English names of the agencies be listed, or also the native language name?
• Some agencies seem to change their names fairly often: should these be listed individually, or just a single entry listed?
• What exactly defines an Agency? Is it a standalone government department? Is is when a section of a department related to space exploration was created? e.g. [5] says that the Brazilian Space Agency was originally the "Planetarium Division established under the Prime Minister’s Department", then "Space Science Studies (BAKSA) established with extended sphere of responsibilities it was envisioned to undertake. ", before the "National Space Agency (ANGKASA)" was estabished. Should just the last one of these be listed (which is what currently happens), or all of them?

Thanks, Mike Peel (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FAR for Hubble Space Telescope

Hubble Space Telescope has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Rocket article titles

I have proposed a large number of moves and other changes to clean up the mess that is caused by the lack of any accepted disambiguation standard for rocket articles. The proposal is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As part of the above proposal, there is discussion on moving M-100 (rocket) on top of M-100 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

List of ISS spacewalks

I have nominated the page for Featured List Removal (it's not part of this project, but it probably should be). Feel free to comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

International Year of Astronomy 2009

2009 has been proclaimed as the International Year of Astronomy. It would be great to tie in with this, both to help with the aims of the international year and to spur extra improvements to Wikipedia's coverage of astronomy. I've started a thread about this over at WikiProject Astronomy; please have a look and join in with the conversation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Uranus

I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Dextre

I noticed that there are a couple of good snaps of Dextre - the ISS robot arm released in the last few months by NASA on APOD. Can some add them to the wikipage - April 1 and June 11. June 11 snap can also be nominated for FP. --192.8.222.82 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

List of NASA Administrators

... is currently a Featured List Candidate. Comments welcome. Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Aerospace biography taskforce

There's a bit of discussion happening over at WT:AVIATION about forming an Aerospace biography taskforce. Does anyone here have a problem with the Aviation and Space WikiProjects sharing such an endeavour? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The current thinking is to place it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force, but the three involved projects; Aviation, Space, and Biography, would/could link to it in their project banners, and use it for their own assessments however they see fit. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As described at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space travellers#Merge proposal, the "Space travellers" wikiproject was merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight in February 2008. From the "space" perspective, coordination of work on astronaut bios is best carried out in cooperation with the "Human spaceflight" wikiproject. Of course not all "space" bios are astronaut bios. But what advantages would be gained by closely coordinating efforts on the bios of 19th century rocket scientists and 21st century business entrepreneurs? (That's somewhat rhetorical: the advantage I would hope to gain is a steady flow of articles we could feature at Portal:Spaceflight/Selected biography.) (sdsds - talk) 18:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Planets beyond Neptune

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1278 articles are assigned to this project, of which 454, or 35.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 08:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

European Space Agency

Hi. I've noticed that this wikiproject has rated the ESA article of top importance. As the article is in really bad shape et the present time, I'd like to start a task force to improve the main ESA article and articles about ESA programmes, history...

My question is: How do I do that?U5K0 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now set up a task force page and a portal on ESA as part of the wikiproject Europe. I'm interested in knowing if I can somehow integrate the task force into this project as well. Also I am in need of a lot of help, so anyone interested in the subject or even if you just know how to set up the categories for a wikiproject or TF is more than welcomed. U5K0 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment for 2 Pallas

As part of the Good Article sweeps conducted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have completed a reassessment of 2 Pallas and placed the reassessment on hold for one week to allow some minor things to be fixed. I would appreciate it if editors from this project could visit the reassessment, which can be found here. Please contact me with any concerns or questions. Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The only remaining issue is finding a citation for Pallas' axial tilt. If anyone knows where to find a source for this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A new task force under wikiproject Europe

I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming question

(cross-posted to Aviation as well)

Ok, so I just did a first draft of North American DC-3. The problem is the project isn't really North American's. All they did was take some NASA money and draw up a budget based on Faget's team's drawings. So what should the article be named? "DC-3" is out of the question, "Faget DC-3" doesn't seem right, and "DC-3 (space shuttle)" seems like a mouthful. Comments?

Maury (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Long titles are ok. How about "DC-3 space shuttle design"? (sdsds - talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry spelling or local spelling on aerospace articles

See here. --John (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lunar eclipse templates need documentation

I've just looked at a few of the lunar eclipse templates (e.g. {{Lunarsaros133 db}}, {{Lunarsaros125 db}} others in Category:Lunar eclipses), none of which have documentation. Can anyone add some, please? Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy Mabbett; Andy Mabbett's contributions 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Space

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FLRC for Timeline of first orbital launches by country

I just wanted to let you know a list within your project's scope is being reassessed for Featured list status. Please come help improve the list! The discussion can be found here. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rocket name cleanup poll

User:GW Simulations has implemented a poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll concerning GW's rename proposal found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of space shuttle missions

The featured list List of space shuttle missions has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Atmosphere of Jupiter

I submitted this article for a peer review. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Neptune

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

I don't know if this is the proper WikiProject, but: I've just been through a number of biographies of astronauts, and the amount of trivial information is mindblowing. We have included just about every astronaut's hobbies, from woodworking to scuba diving. Some included biographical details of nephews, nieces and parents-in-law. I don't know where the information comes from, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Irrelevant information like that has no place in an encyclopedia. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This mostly comes from the NASA biographies that were imported for all the astronauts. Most biographies have hardly ever seen any editing so far I think --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this information trivia. That kind of information can round out a biography and add more information. We should be looking to expand the articles rather than removing cited minor biographical material. Astronauts weren't born in an egg and their career is only one portion of a person's biography. Family and other background information is important to include in a biography. While some might remove a scuba diving hobby, others might ask what their scuba certification is. Most of the information removed was provided by NASA and was not trivial cruft like what episode of Family Guy featured the astronaut or what day they were on Oprah. I recommend against removing cited hobby and family material. --Dual Freq (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that such factoids don't even remotely pertain to their careers as astronauts makes such information trivial and unsuitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It might be interesting, but our priority is to be relevant and on-topic, not to be interesting. It doesn't add any information, it doesn't teach us anything. What does it matter where an astronaut's parents-in-law live? (Besides, such information could well be an invasion of their privacy, in violation of WP:BLP). The fact that the information was provided by NASA doesn't matter. We don't include everything that's out there on the internet, we filter it and that's what makes us an encyclopedia. You have repeatedly indicated that only pop culture cruft is trivial, but where does it say that? Where does it say that only pop culture cruft has no place on Wikipedia? Aecis·(away) ^talk 08:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I have requested the input of the relevant WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"factoids don't even remotely pertain to their careers as astronauts" this is simply not true. Astronauts with a feel for diving have gone on to participate in NEEMO for instance, and radio amateur astronauts have been doing interviews over radio connections with children on the ground. Astronomy photographe hobbyists have done AMAZING things with improvised tracking systems to photograph the cities on earth by night. Movie buffs have expanded the entertainment library of ISS. Fact is that many of these hobbies are also practised in relation to their job as an astronaut or as being a resident of the ISS, often resulting in interesting improvised experiments. If NASA sees it fit to note, then as long the article is not "properly" edited, I see no reason to remove it on the spot. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Iff there were a direct link between a hobby and an activity done while in space, agreed. I don't think I've come across such a link yet, but if an astronaut enjoys growing lettuce on Earth and attempts to grow lettuce in space, then it might be worth mentioning, okay. But why do we need to know that Charles E. Brady, Jr. likes to play tennis, that James Buchli likes to play racquetball, that Dominic A. Antonelli likes to watch NASCAR and that Michael Foreman likes to spend time with his family? This is Wikipedia, not a friendship book. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

New article: Jack King (NASA Public Affairs Officer)

I've created a new article, Jack King (NASA Public Affairs Officer), and invite updates. King was the NASA Public Affairs Officer who provided the Apollo 11 launch commentary you've probably heard many times. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 in spaceflight up for peer review

In order to improve timeline of spaceflight articles, I have requested that 2008 in spaceflight be peer reviewed. Please comment on the article here. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of January 26, 2009

I've created Solar eclipse of January 26, 2009 based on what I could figure out from its successor. But I'm in way over my head, perplexed with the astronomical jargon and abbreviations. Could someone familiar with the subject of solar eclipses finish filling in the blanks, particularly those in the templates? Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Trojan

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

Everyone loves this so far, so I don't see why you wouldn't love it too.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun

Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun has been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 15 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Mars article currently lacks sources

Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Mar 2009), Articles to be expanded (Jan 2009), Articles with unsourced statements (Feb 2008, Aug 2008, Mar 2009), thanks Tom B (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Rocketry

I have proposed that WPRocketry move out of the WPSpace group of projects. Since the reorganisation it has been operating significantly outside of the scope of the rest of WPSpace, so I feel it would be better off as an independent, but associated project. I've started discussion on the WPRocketry talk page. --GW… 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• This has now been done. --GW… 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg

File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox magnetosphere}}

I created this infobox for the articles about planetary magnetospheres (currently used in two articles). Comments and suggestions are appreciated. Ruslik (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Magnetosphere of Jupiter

I nominated this article for peer review. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Campus Radio- Podcadsting in relation to Moon Landings...

Hi,

I was told to approach your wiki project in connection with some attempts to get a podcast for Wiki Campus Radio developed, topic being the Moon Landings..

Any suggestions on what 'free' content could be included?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png

File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ISSafterSTS119.jpg

File:ISSafterSTS119.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Human spaceflight

Can I please request that the newly-assembled Portal:Human spaceflight be included in the Space portals template? Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sun FAR

I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists of minor planets

I have two problems / proposals for these lists. First, it is rather confusing that e.g. the "List of minor planets: 10001–11000" consists of ten subpages named "List of asteroids/10001–10100" and so on. Both should be at "minor planets" or at "asteroids" for consistency, in my opinion. Second: these subpages should not exist in this form. According to Wikipedia:Subpages, subpages are not allowed in the mainspace, and are technically disabled (note how the talk page Talk:List of asteroids/10001–10100 has a small automatic hatnote pointing to Talk:List of minor planets, while the main page doesn't: this is because subpages in Talk are allowed).

There are different solutions to this: the subpages can be reintegrated in the main page (my preferred solution): templates or transcluded content should in general only be used when it is transcluded on different pages, not when it is only used on one page (size issues are not really relevant, to load the page before you can edit it, you have to get all the info anyway, so the smaller size you get when editing is not really a benefit). If this is not wanted, the pages have to be moved, e.g. List of asteroids/10001–10100 should become List of asteroids: 10001–10100 or (even better) List of minor planets: 10001–10100. Perhaps other solutions are possible, these are the most obvious ones. Fram (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to naming, I would prefer parenthesised disambiguation, and the "minor planets" title (eg List of minor planets (10001-10100), but anything would be better than the current system, which is a blatant violation of WP:NC. --GW… 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking a bit more on this, and I really don't see any reason to keep separate pages if they are only being transcluded on a bigger page. It doesn't help loading (same amoibt of data needs to be loaded), reading, or editing (you get section buttons anyway, which are easier to edit than the current edit buttons, and you don't get the strange text (markup, transclusions, ...) an uninformed editor gets when he wants to edit the whole page). I don't see any advantages of keeping the subpages as separate pages, even if they are no longer technically subpages. Furthermore, they appear on "random pages" but are not really articles, lacking all introduction or context. So barring further remarks and discussion, I'll probably just merge the pages to the "mother" page and delete the subpages afterwards. I'll wait a week or so to give everyone the chance to respond. Fram (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The List(s) of asteroids are all being migrated to List(s) of minor planets, so naming will be consistent. As for breaking up the 1000-minor planet pages, this was done because of their length. The editor complains (rightly) that they are way beyond the 32 Kib "limit". Even if this were not a problem, using 100-minor planet pages yields the substantial benefit of lowering the size of the history trail, as individual minor planet edits are made (as they are named in drips and drabs by the IAU/MPC). The situation is a little different for the Meanings of minor planet names pages, where 100-minor planet subpages are overkill in the rather sparse high-denomination regions. There is a discussion about this here. Urhixidur (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming is consistent but wrong, since they still are subpages, which are forbidden in the main namespace. Fram (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus, you can just edit a section, this gives exactly the same result (no "editor window" complaints) with none of the hassle of transclusion of forbidden subpages. And what is the problem with a large history trail? Now you have a large history spread, where the history of one page is divided over ten subpages, each with a history with only 5 or 6 persons (like in List of asteroids/150101–150200), or seven for the lower numbers (List of asteroids/20001–20100). I'll soon start moving these out of the subpages and into the main pages, like they should be. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus Please

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)

• WikiProject Astronomy
• WikiProject Books
• WikiProject Physics
• WikiProject Space
• WikiProject History of Science
• WikiProject Science
• WikiProject Mathematics
• WikiProject Technology
• WikiProject Computing
• WikiProject Computer Science
• WikiProject Engineering

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:

• Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
• Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
• Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
• Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Article cleanup needed

I direct this projects attention to the article Space science as it seems an important topic and the article really needs work. -- œ^™ 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Over-linking?

I've created a series of typing aid templates today in order to represent the Lagrangian points:

• {{L1}}
• {{L2}}
• {{L3}}
• {{L4}}
• {{L5}}

Since the template is also a link to the Lagrangian point page, replacing existing text in order to use the template has created a possible issue. There are many instances where the text is now {{L2}} [[Lagrangian point]]. So, I wanted to gather some opinion on whether or not this is Over-linking. I was considering going back and delinking Lagrangian point, so that they would all look like {{L2}} Lagrangian point, but the point templates are fairly small so I'm uncertain about what would be best. For a "live" example of this, take a look at 2005 TO74 (the last sentence).

This discussion is also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Over-linking?
— V = I * R (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong GAR notice

Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Some mentoring required

Please give D.martorelli (talk · contribs) some pointers in the right directions. See xyr creations such as Luigi Gussalli and Center for Studies and Research in Aeronautical Medicine (AfD discussion) and xyr edits such as this one to Italian Space Agency, which would seem better off in an article about the history of Italian astronautics. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

A WP:RM requested move has been filed to rename Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Would this move actually be controversial in any way? If no one objects here or on the talk page, I could easily just move the page tomorrow.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NASA GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed NASA for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the gruntwork is done now, and the article could use a fresh set of eyes to copy edit it, add more materiel, and offer suggestions and feedback. If you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Good Article Review Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Skyramp

Skyramp (space launch system based on ground based accelerator) is up for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Kept, I've sent it to RM in an attempt to make it more general. --GW… 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Project Constellation mission articles

Hi all. I've posted a proposal at Talk:List of Constellation missions, about possibly merging all the "Orion xx" articles back into that page. Any thoughts would be appreciated; please leave comments there. Shimgray | talk | 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Report to the Military history Project on Black Project pages, there current standing, and issues that need to be addressed

I have completed a routine report on black project pages, many of which concern recon satellites and are classified as part of this project. As such, any members of this project are invited to comment on the report, which is located at here. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AZUR (satellite) template required

Azur is a tiny stub. Please can someone template it as such, and adopt it into the relevant project. It's about Germany's first scientific satellite and I can't find much information about it. my username is 86.136.34.91 (talk) (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting test

A discussion regarding date formatting has been started at Talk:Ares I#Date formatting test
— V = I * R (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Help collaborate on Ares I

If anyone has a moment to spare, I would deeply appreciate it if you could come lend a hand with Ares I. It's recently received a Peer Review, which can be found at Talk:Ares I/Comments. Any and all contributions would be welcome, no matter how small or large. Even if you come and change one comma to a period, that would be useful. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

space societies prodded for deletion

User:RadioFan has prodded for deletion a whole bunch of space societies, space advocacy groups, meteor tracking societies, and amateur astronomy societies for deletion. See WP:PRODSUM and entries from before this date. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

24 people / 24 men to the moon

I have noticed a continuing effort over a number of months by (it seems) one person, using different unregistered addresses, to amend the pages of the 24 people who flew to the Moon during the Apollo program. They believe that they should be discussed as "sixth man," "seventh man," etc., which in my opinion adds unneeded ambiguity to the pages (no women have yet flown to the moon, but using "men" leaves that option open). Their unregistered nature and changing address has not allowed me to discuss, and changing back their edits has resulted in mild abuse from them. Their point of view seems to be that "men" better reflects the 1960s era, regardless of whether it makes a 21st-century web page less accurate.

An editor suggested to me: "Have you tried bringing the topic up at WT:SPACE? If you were, and if the phrasing you have suggested gains consensus, then whenever our Mississippi State University friend starts reverting things back to his or her own preferred version, then the IP could be warned and blocked as necessary for POV pushing." I am therefore doing so - although their changing address makes me wonder if blocking would be affected. Is there a way to semi-protect the affected pages from non-established users? Looking forward to any thoughts / assistance on this matter. Thank you. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the same IPs have been POV vandalizing Planned Parenthood articles at exactly the same time as their edits to the astronaut's articles, I think they've got an agenda that does not include improving Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They are now doing it with a different IP, 130.18.233.194, also registered to Mississippi State University. Also done in the past as 99.1.124.197, same MO, and as "Oneforanother" - when they also vandalized the Planned Parenthood page. I second the request to protect all 24 of these pages from this vandalism. They don't appear to want to talk about it, only to continue to log in with different IPs from the same facility. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the timestamps, you will notice that the IP's final edit [6] was on the 19th, while my suggestion [7] to SpaceHistory101 about bringing the discussion here was on the 20th. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Back at it again with another IP, I'm getting close to asking a Wikipedia:CheckUser to impose a rangeblock on the university. -MBK₀₀₄ 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that, as looking back further through the pages of many of the 24 astronauts, they have been doing this for some time, and do not seem to wish to reach consensus. Their same wording and MO was also used from another IP address in the recent past ( 131.22.200.55 ), much of which was tagged as vandalism. Plus, looking at the Planned Parenthood page mentioned above, it seems their agenda is not to improve Wikipedia. But perhaps they will come to this page and discuss the issues? Edgeshappy12 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not more concise, 24 people does not show the change in times. 24 people is just a gender neutral way of saying it and saying that it encompasses everyone is just a mask to cover your own agenda. 24 men, the first humans to ever do so is a pure and better way of saying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.138 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject of these articles is not the "change in times", and these edits are irrelevant to the articles. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of compromise statement needs to be reached. Your gender neutral statement has to reflect history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.138 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It already does reflect the history relevant to the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Then prepare for total war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.189 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 August 2009

Wikipedia works at its best when people with divergent views work together to build a common consensus. We would welcome your assistance to work with us in order to build a better encyclopedia. However making threats like a nine year old is not going to benefit anyone. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Then prepare for total war" ? Good grief. Time to protect these 24 pages, I think. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The protection policy does not allow for pre-emptive page protections. What is warranted is a healthy usage of WP:RBI paired with WP:DENY. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

131.22.200.55 appears to be doing the same edit warring and has already ignored a request to take it to the talk page. They are also obfuscating the nature of their edits. I'm not in a place where I can send warnings easily, wouldn't mind someone taking care of that. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• wow... now this is what I call lame. I went back and figured out for myself that the statements that are linked to the article all originally used the work "people". I'm a tad bit curious if there was a reason for that choice? Just off the top of my head, I'd think that 24 astronauts who flew to the Moon would be better. Although, I have no idea is that would address the IP user's concern/trolling (it doesn't seem likely, but it's possible. Using "astronaut" seems like a slight improvement regardless).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 11:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the logic in astronaut, I will agree to this if it will be done and settled. If we generalize to people then next someone will say they were the first carbon based lifeforms to travel to the moon and on and so forth. So can this be agreed upon? (Saying astronaut as a term for space travel. Yes I know that there are cosmonauts) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.32.44 (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then the changes will continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.128 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Project newsletter

I was thinking of setting up a project newsletter to try and boost activity within the project. Does anyone have any comments/suggestions/objections regarding this proposal? --GW… 20:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Chandrayaan-1 lost; article could use cleanup

Chandrayaan-1 has been in the news (radio contact lost, mission declared over). Our article will probably be getting hits; it could use some copyediting and wikifying. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular pages

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project on [8]. --Ysangkok (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial geographic coordinate templates

{{Moon}} and {{Coor Mars}} have been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

New Hubble images

I just saw that Hubble released a bunch of new images a week or so (here, and in less fancy format here). Does that make them public domain? If so, might be useful for you guys. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter mass

User:Serendipodous merged Jupiter mass into the planet Jupiter.

Someone reverted him, but he's still trying to push it through at the Jupiter talk page, complaining that there has always been resistance.

I said, "What reasons can be given, other than Jupiter mass being a stub, for a unit of measurement to be merged into an article about a planet?" - but he still came back at me. I am not going to exhaust myself explaining the simplest of things to the ... He is unable to listen to reason, perhaps weight of numbers will dissuade if not persuade him. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are continue to attack other editors and strongly advise you to stop disruption. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik0, as this is an issue with the individual editor, please take that discussion to the editor's talk page. TJRC (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Experts needed...

Outline of space exploration is a branch of Wikipedia's outline of knowledge. It presents the subject of space exploration as a tree structure (outline), so that readers can easily see how topics are related (parent, child, sibling, etc.) by how they are arranged on the tree.

And because topics are linked to corresponding articles, the outline doubles as a table of contents or site map for Wikipedia's coverage of space exploration.

The outline is incomplete, and needs editors interested in the final frontier to develop it.

Please take a look....

Is it structured well?

What's missing?

Can you improve it?

For more information on outlines, see WP:OOK, WP:OUTLINE, and WP:WPOOK.

For some specific examples of well-developed outlines, see Outline of the United States, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of robotics, and Outline of classical studies. For examples of even more detailed outlines, see Outline of forestry, Outline of cell biology, and Outline of Buddhism.

The Transhumanist 22:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Astrosociology?

I stumbled on strange word astrosociology and Wikipedia was my first choice to check it out. To my surprise I didn't find even simple definition of the word here, though I found that the article was appearing and deleted several times here. Ok, even if the subject doesn't have "strong scientific ground" isn't make sense at least have simple definition article and save many people time from digging through whole Internet to find out what the heck it is? We have Astrology, Creationism and other articles with no strong scientific background. C'mon wikipedians! friendlystar (talk) 04:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Question on Space probe

Is this page necessary? Possibly should be merged with Robotic spacecraft. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Space probe is just one of several types of robotic spacecraft. Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Titania (moon)

The article is a featured article candidate now. You can comment here. Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

'Space Probes' and 'Robotic Spacecraft'

Articles exist in Wikipedia today for both Space probes and Robotic spacecraft. The article on Space Probes is in particularly poor shape with no apparent effort to maintain it nor even ensure it has any verifiable sources for it's fundamental claims, including just what exactly is the definition of a space probe and how it is or might be different from that of a robotic spacecraft. Perspective from other editors would be much appreciated. Please comment on the Talk page of either article, as I have attempted to start a discussion over there. N2e (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Space to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with Template categorization

Hey folks, I've been trying to get Template:NASA space program out ofbeing in the base Category:NASA, and into it's sub-cat Category:United States space exploration templates all day, but for the life of me I can't figure out why it won't change. If anyone could assist, I'd appreciate it.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)