| Revision as of 12:04, 20 July 2005 editJguk (talk | contribs)15,849 edits {{FL}}← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:00, 2 August 2005 edit undoMBisanz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users126,668 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| -] ] 19:52, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC) | -] ] 19:52, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC) | ||
| I'd say no to including SpaceShipOne cause it is a "space plane" not a "space shuttle", otherwise you'd have to include other ones like the X-planes or even some of the high flying SR-71s. MBisanz | |||
| ==Landing sites== | ==Landing sites== | ||
Revision as of 06:00, 2 August 2005
Content-free Space Shuttle pages
- All pages like STS-61-B, STS-61-C,
STS-55, STS-56 etc which incorporate the Space Shuttle mission template but have no actual content whatsoever. Evercat 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)- Comment: It helps people add content, but it is misleading because those with no information appear as blue links and not red. But, in fact, if the template was not ready, I would never add the crew list for STS-55, as I did just now. Optim 14:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This is the exact equivalent of species articles consisting solely of an empty taxobox, which I trust would never be allowed. Evercat 14:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Im responsible for putting these templates up, and the idea is to help people like Optim out. I believe they add value because the provide a starting poiint for people and they will standardize the look of Space shuttle missions, which helps overall comprehension as well as improving look and feel. I do not believe that they detract from the ability to add information to the Wiki any more than stub pages do. The template provides a link to summaries of space shuttle missions that are in the public domain, so that content can be easily and quickly added, or if somone is just searching for information they can find it Theon 14:37, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If there only was an ever so short stub text in addition to the blank template, it would be ok, and I recommend all who wish to ease the adding of additional content to put in atleast two sentences as a starter. — Sverdrup (talk) 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Changed to keep, as I it trust all of them will fill up at least to stubs now. I don't like vfd being a place to bring sub-stubs into attention to be fixed though. — Sverdrup (talk) 20:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If there only was an ever so short stub text in addition to the blank template, it would be ok, and I recommend all who wish to ease the adding of additional content to put in atleast two sentences as a starter. — Sverdrup (talk) 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, unless filled with contents soon - just filling the table and list the crew would be enough to keep them. andy
- I agree that even minimal content would probably be enough. Evercat 14:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I can agree with the minimal content decision, but how much is enough? would just a list of crew be enough?Theon 14:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I am adding crew lists. I hope it's enough to make people understand why we need the templates. If there was no template, I would never make those contributions. Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
- I can agree with the minimal content decision, but how much is enough? would just a list of crew be enough?Theon 14:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that even minimal content would probably be enough. Evercat 14:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep as stub or merge and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Just a matter of adding basic content (crew etc) - basically copy & paste from NASA's pages - to make stubs of them. Fredrik 15:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. They are useful. However, somebody should go to List of space shuttle missions and mark the pages with no content with a star (*). Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Creating a useful framework for information is just as valuable, and the results worth keeping, as information itself. In any event, there is implied information (ie. "STS-61-C" was a Space Shuttle Mission") that is equivalent to a stub. I suppose Theon could add this sentence or something similar if it makes deletionists happy, but I don't really see what it adds. Jgm 15:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Alright. I myself will try to add some details to
mostsome of these pages, either today or tomorrow. Evercat 16:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ordering
It would be nice to be able to find somewhere an explanation of why missions are not in numerical order. For example, STS-107 (Columbia accident) was preceded by STS-113 and will be succeeded by STS-114. Jdavidb 19:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- When a Space Shuttle mission is first planned, it is assigned an STS number (example STS-113). During planning and training for that mission, it may fall behind. Another mission may prove to be more critical and may get moved up in the launch order. The missions keep their original STS numbers, but may end up being launched out of sequence. Error 404 17:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reusable spacecraft
Should this article really be 'List of reusable spacecraft missions' and include SpaceShipOne, et. al.? Also, the only thing left to be done for this list (IMHO) is to complete the Notes field on the remainder of the entries. -Joseph (Talk) 19:32, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
- Prospective entries:
| Date | Mission Name | Agency | Vehicle | Launch Site | Landing Site | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 21 2004 | SS1 15P | File:USA flag.png MAV | SpaceShipOne | Mojave | Mojave | First commercial manned spaceflight |
| September 29 2004 | SS1 16P | File:USA flag.png MAV | SpaceShipOne | Mojave | Mojave | X-Prize flight #1 |
| October 4 2004 | SS1 17P | File:USA flag.png MAV | SpaceShipOne | Mojave | Mojave | X-Prize flight #2 |
-Joseph (Talk) 19:52, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
I'd say no to including SpaceShipOne cause it is a "space plane" not a "space shuttle", otherwise you'd have to include other ones like the X-planes or even some of the high flying SR-71s. MBisanz
Landing sites
Are the landing site listings all correct? Weren't at least one or two missions diverted to White Sands? --Matt McIrvin 21:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Possibly. There is certainly cleanup work to do. However, this is data that wasn't there before, at all. -Joseph (Talk) 21:47, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
Somebody fixed STS-3... I went through looking for later missions that landed at Edwards. Think I got them all, but I could have missed one or two. --Matt McIrvin 22:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)