Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spaceflight: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:45, 7 August 2024 edit47.64.203.33 (talk) →Requested move of SpaceX Starship flight test pages: ReplyTag: Reply ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:53, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,296,120 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 11) (bot
(57 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 51:		Line 51:
	\|archiveheader = {{aan}}		\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K		\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = 10		\|counter = 11
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 4
	\|algo = old(31d)		\|algo = old(31d)
Line 63:		Line 63:
	__FORCETOC__		__FORCETOC__

	== ~~PROD~~ of ] ==		== Merge request - Timeline of STS-121 ==

			I've added a merger suggestion for ] into the main article (]) since it seems redundant to me, especially given that there doesn't seem to be a separate page for the timeline for any other Space Shuttle mission. However since the timeline is quite long I haven't gone ahead with the merger myself & wanted to ] first. ] (]) 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	Hi folks -- I just saved VSS ''Imagine'' from a PROD, but the article could certainly use a little love from anyone who can help out please? --] (]) 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Requested move at ] ==
	== Date format ==
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 18:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

			== Discussion on date format ==
	The style guide states that "Since space is not within any Earth-bound time zone, and to avoid regional bias, the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight community has established a consensus (discussed here) to use UTC."

			Hi! I have recently opened up a discussion on the date format of the article for ]. You can find it on the ]. Would like to see people's perspectives on it. Thank you! ] (]) 22:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	What it doesn't make explicitly clear, does that include using the DMY date format too?

			== Requested move at ] ==
	It appears to me that most pages use the DMY date format, but the Apollo and SpaceX Starship pages appear to be notable exceptions. I attempted to change over the Starship pages, @] opposed to the changes (]). ] (]) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
			] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ] (]) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Busted Discord Link ==
	:I was hoping to get some clarity on the matter from those involved in the earlier discussions (@] @] @] @]).

			Hey, all - anyone know if the Project Spaceflight discord is still active? Seems like at least the link on the main project page has been deprecated. Feels like it should be either be refreshed with a new link if it is still active or removed if the discord no longer exists! :) ] (]) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:Thanks! ] (]) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

			:Okay, I did some digging - the WP:Spaceflight thing is a subgroup inside the main Wikimedia Commons discord, but for whatever reason, that link has expired on the main page. I'll see if I can update it! ] (]) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
	::For additional info, the changes were to the ], ], ], and ] articles.
	::All the articles listed above did have the "Use MDY" template, while most other spaceflight articles have the "Use DMY" template (including ] and ]).
	::(Additionally, the draft ] uses DMY) ] (]) 19:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

	:::How articles were originally created matters. Whether some more recent editor might have changed the article template to the "Use MDY" template", the improtant question is whether there was a solid discussion & consensus for the change from DMY to MDY. So that would need to be looked at for some of the articles you mentioned.
	:::But broadly, I think we are much better off if English Misplaced Pages spaceflight articles are in a more global standard of date and time formats, and not the US-centric narrow flavor. So, I'd be in favor of DMY data format and UTC times as the default starting point. For orbital launches, I believe we adopted the practice long ago to give times in UTC (with parenthetical local time, if relevant). ] (]) 03:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::: I too am in favour of DMY data format. This is implicitly endorsed by the project ] and the MOS (]). The use of DMY dates used to be explicitly endorsed in the project style but we had problems with people changing the style of articles. The guidelines state that the date style of an article is that of the first non-stub version of an article. (]) Where there is a {{tl\|use dmy dates}} or {{tl\|use mdy dates}} template, that will be honoured by the bots and templates, and should be honoured by editors too. While ] trumps ], my preference has always been to seek consensus. ] ] 05:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::Can we add something back to the style guide to reflect this? I see there was something there until January 2022. I’d suggest:
	:::::It is preferred that dates be in a day-month-year format (7 July 1983), however Misplaced Pages’s guidelines on retaining established date formats (see ]) should be respected.
	::::-- ] (]) 06:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Pinging @] and @] who were involved with that removal. ] (]) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::]
	::::<s>Articles related to Apollo and Starship have a strong national tie to the US (both single-nation endeavors), so MOS:MILFORMAT supports MDY for both sets of articles ] (]) 12:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)</s> EDIT: misinterpreted definition of "strong national ties", so wouldn't apply to Starship. It would still apply to Apollo, though.] (]) 13:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Yeah, I agree that the Apollo pages should remain in MDY. I mentioned them here in an effort to have a more complete discussion. I do, however, continue to believe that the Starship IFT pages should use DMY format. ] (]) 16:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::::As you said, ] is relevant. The IFT articles have evolved considerably using MDY, so policy suggests keeping MDY.
	::::::(Additionally, I believe that MDY should be endorsed over DMY) ] (]) 18:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Care to expand on why you believe that MDY should be endorsed over DMY? -- ] (]) 19:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::Its (in my opinion) better<S>, and a ] uses it.</s> ] (]) 19:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::::Actually, it is a small minority of the world's population. ] ] 22:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::::I misread the map. LOL my bad ] (]) 22:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::::I agree that ] is important. ] overrides wikiprojects. Wikiprojects are for setting rules that are left vague by the MOS. However see the new discussion I started below. ] (]) 20:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::::Why do you think that "strong national ties" does not apply to Starship? SpaceX has on a number of occasions invoked nationalistic sentiment when talking about its space launch ("returning space launch to America", employees cheering "USA USA USA", and the general sentiment of American fans of SpaceX). ] (]) 20:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::::Most Americans do not care about SpaceX (which, as a fan of spaceflight, is very hard for me to understand).
	::::::But if you think it has strong national ties, then your probably correct.
	:::::: EDIT: Ergzay, please use fewer messages. Several of your posts could have been merging into one post. ] (]) 21:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::Apologies, it's a bad habit of mine as I write first and then develop additional thoughts and write those as well. ] (]) 21:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::::::That's fine (I have the same issue).
	::::::::Just use the edit function to modify the original post. ] (]) 22:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	: This is a wider subject that is long overdue for being covered in WikiProject Spaceflight. That WikiProject Spaceflight is about things that happen ''in space'' (edit: beyond suborbital trajectories) or things launching <s>''into space''</s> ''into or beyond orbit''. In that case it absolutely makes sense to use UTC and probably DMY. However for events that are happening on land at launch sites not directly related to launch activities, local time of day is absolutely relevant, as is local use of date formats. Where these must be mixed (for example launch prep or pre-launch operations) a judgement call needs to be made and policy should be left vague. ] (]) 20:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::In cases where local time is used however, it should be mandatory to append the time zone or wording like "local time" or similar. ] (]) 20:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	:::I think that's good nuance. For launch and landing, it would be good to use the time zone code and the local time format in the infobox and include something more explanatory in the intro prose. An example of what that would look like . -- ] (]) 20:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::To be clear, I'm relatively in favor of unifying Starship related articles into MDY and local-time formats. Almost all starship activities thus far have been happening on the ground or in the airspace above the launch site. For example all of the IFT launches did not reach full orbit and so have no events that would be relevant for UTC/DMY usage. When we start getting orbital launches with Starship and payload deployments I think UTC/DMY usage should come into play. ] (]) 20:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::Your Boeing example is a good example of how orbital launch should be formatted, but we're not quite there yet with Starship. ] (]) 20:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::To be more clear I edited my earlier comment mentioning exactly what I mean that I think suborbital launches are not covered. ] (]) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
	::::For example, I did a quick survey of a couple US-based sounding rocket pages picked at random and they either use military date formats or they use MDY formats. I didn't see any DMY formats or UTC. See ]. ] (]) 21:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

	== Requested move at ] ==
	] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. '''<span style="background:#FFBE98;border:1px solid #FFF8E7;border-radius:18px;padding:4px">] • </span>]]</span>''' 22:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

	== Requested merge at ] ==

	Hi, there is a requested merge discussion at ] which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. The discussion has been open since the end of February. Thanks, ] (]) 11:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

	== Assistance cleaning up ]? ==

	I'm trying to go through and clean up some articles related to Martian topics and it appears that ] is a complete mess that lists every single event, day-by-day, of Mars 2020. This one I'm a bit stuck on, since it clearly is a bit of a ] situation but it's not immediately obvious to me how best to approach it. Would anyone have any time to help me work through this one and clean it up so it passes muster? ] 15:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

	:Not that interested in this article in particular but I'm also noticing that the gallery is huge (it has subsections). That probably needs to get TNT-ed or distributed too. ] (]) 17:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

	== Requested move of SpaceX Starship flight test pages ==

	] There is a requested move discussion at ], impacting all of the SpaceX Starship integrated flight test pages, that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ] (]) 15:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

	:I think this is important to comment on, as again some individuals try to capture discussion on own interpretations. Maybe members of this project also might want to re-consider the "Low‑importance" assessments for all the SpaceX Starship articles. This is the most media commented spaceflight action nowadays, even before Ariane + Artemis (which is dependent on Starship, of course), but rated "low importance" leaves these acticles orphaned, neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others, especially IPs, from co-editing. The articles suffer greatly. ] (]) 10:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
	::First, stop with the baseless accusations. They aren't constructive.
	::There also isn't a correlation, AFAIK, between the official article importance and the # of editors working on the article. ] is a good example; low importance, almost ] have edited it.
	::For a list of the classification and quality of every ] article, they are below:
	::]: Class B, High Importance. Former "Good article".
	::]: Class B, Mid Importance.
	::] Class B, Mid Importance.
	::]: Class C, High importance.
	::]: Class B, Low Importance. (For comparison, ] is a "featured list", Low Importance)
	::]: Class C, Not listed in importance. (This should be fixed, and placed at low-mid importance)
	::]: Class C, Low Importance.
	::]: Class C, Low Importance.
	::]: Class C, Low Importance.
	::]: Stub, Low Importance. (This should be mid-high, as this is SpaceX's first attempt to catch a booster)
	::]: Not listed in quality, Not listed in importance. (This should be fixed, and set to Stub, Low Importance.)
	::]: Start Class, Low Importance.
	::]: Class B, Low Importance.
	::]: Class C, Low Importance
	::]: Class C, Mid Importance.
	::]: Start Class, Mid Importance.
	::'']:'' Stub Class, Low Importance
	::(Also, just so you are aware, Starship has 0 connection to ]. They're direct competitors) ] (]) 12:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::"First, stop with the baseless accusations. They aren't constructive.
	::: -> what are you doing? Accusing me of claiming Starship-Ariane relations? Like you earlier accused me of changing IPs to appears as diffenet people? I did not accuse anyone in special, but you seem to feel adressed, mabe as you have been cought for "original research multiple times (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests#Dubious_statements_with_even_more_dubious_sources)
	:::I never stated a relation between Ariane and Starship. Just untrue. Re-read and rethink before once more attacking me!
	:::Also, once more you distract from the main topic by dropping lots of links without giving any resonable arguments. ] (]) 10:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
	::::Just trying to clear up a misconception, after all, you did say: "Ariane + Artemis (which is dependent on Starship, of course)"
	::::As for baseless accusations:
	::::"neclected and more or less to a single editor who had put in original reseach and exaggerations while blocking others, especially IPs, from co-editing"
	::::(And this isn't the location for arguing about the requested move) ] (]) 11:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
	:::::You know the difference between "is" and "are"? Semantics are inportant when reading posts and then commenting (in an aggessive way).
	:::::2nd case you did nod read properly: I did not discuss a single word pro or con about the requested move, I just said commenting there was important.
	:::::Could you please stop attacking me personally without even reading properly and understanding what I wrote? You do this every time when I comment, or distracting from the main point. ] (]) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

	== How should time intervals be displayed? ==

	Several articles of interest to this wikiproject use {{tl\|time interval}} with <code>\|abbr=on</code>. The issue of what should be displayed by this template is being discussed at ]. Please comment there. ] (]) 04:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

	== Requested move at ] ==
	] There is a requested move discussion at ] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span><sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 07:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:53, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Spaceflight and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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

Shortcut

WT:SPACEFLIGHT

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 31 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. 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

WikiProject Spaceflight

General information
Established (2006-09-25) 25 September 2006 (age 18) Articles under scope 9522 out of 6,933,177 articles.
Sub-projects
Active Adopt an astronaut Timeline of spaceflight
Inactive Aerospace biography ESA SpaceX Misplaced Pages:Constellation program
Defunct Human spaceflight Space Colonization Unmanned spaceflight
Matters of interest
Grading scheme Assessment Log Quality Featured topics Recognized content
Statistics Open tasks New articles Popular pages
Others 2007 reorganisation 2010 reorganisation Spaceflight portal
Resources
Advice Article titles Launch articles Style guide
Templates Tab headers Generic The Downlink Timeline of spaceflight Template list Template index
Newsletter (The Downlink)
Discussion Issues Mailing list
User
Awards Mailing list Members Userboxes
v t e

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spaceflight: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-02-04

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge request - Timeline of STS-121

I've added a merger suggestion for Timeline of STS-121 into the main article (STS-121) since it seems redundant to me, especially given that there doesn't seem to be a separate page for the timeline for any other Space Shuttle mission. However since the timeline is quite long I haven't gone ahead with the merger myself & wanted to raise a discussion first. Slovborg (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attitude (psychology)#Requested move 23 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on date format

Hi! I have recently opened up a discussion on the date format of the article for Kalpana Chawla. You can find it on the Talk page. Would like to see people's perspectives on it. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Leonid Kadeniuk#Page move due to misspelled name

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leonid Kadeniuk#Page move due to misspelled name that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Busted Discord Link

Hey, all - anyone know if the Project Spaceflight discord is still active? Seems like at least the link on the main project page has been deprecated. Feels like it should be either be refreshed with a new link if it is still active or removed if the discord no longer exists! :) XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I did some digging - the WP:Spaceflight thing is a subgroup inside the main Wikimedia Commons discord, but for whatever reason, that link has expired on the main page. I'll see if I can update it! XFalcon2004x (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: