Talk:2017 in spaceflight/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
2018?
Why are the 2018 articles in here? I read the note on the 2018 page saying the page shouldn't be created until January, 2017 at the earliest because the dates are not stable enough and yet we have a pile of 2018 dates here on the 2017 page. In my opinion we either know enough about those launches to start their own article or not. And I'd lean toward creating the article as there are quite a few 2018 entries with a good amount of detail and quite a few citations. Having 2018 appended onto 2017 because a note on the 2018 page says so doesn't seem to make any sense. aremisasling (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, now that it's November I say we just go ahead and do it. Anybody opposed? I can create the page tonight.Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- One last call for opposition, and I'll really make the article tonight.Astrofreak92 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Putting next year's entries into old year's page does not make sense in any case: There certainly will be a next year, and whatever you write into the old year's page can be written exactly the same way into the new year's page. If the entries in themselfves are ok in the old year's page, they are ok in the new year's page too, and the placement in the correct year obviously is far better. Tomdo08 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- "There certainly will be a next year"[citation needed] - We made this standard practice a while ago, and we have an article for 2019 and 2020s in spaceflight already. --mfb (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Putting next year's entries into old year's page does not make sense in any case: There certainly will be a next year, and whatever you write into the old year's page can be written exactly the same way into the new year's page. If the entries in themselfves are ok in the old year's page, they are ok in the new year's page too, and the placement in the correct year obviously is far better. Tomdo08 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
"To be defined" definition?
There is a "To be defined" (TBD) section in "2017 in spaceflight", yet when I try to do a search on this phrase, I can't find a definition. There is no relevant entry on the Wikipedia TBD disambiguation page. Can someone (perhaps someone responsible for the relevant section in this article) provide a definition along with a citation for that definition? --Ben Best:Talk 01:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is a very common English abbreviation. See To be announced and wikt:TBD. — JFG talk 10:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- The page you cited as having no relevant entry in fact says this "TBD is an abbreviation often meaning in ordinary writing "to be discussed" "to be done", "to be defined", "to be decided", "to be determined"".Astrofreak92 (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)