This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Text and/or other creative content from Astroengineering was copied or moved into Astronomical engineering. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed Astroengineering ('AE') after I noticed Astronomical engineering ('ANE'). AE is/was a fairly large page, especially when compared to ANE, but AE was recently redirected to ANE. I would hope that there is a merge in the works (personally I do prefer 'astronomical' to just 'astro', but don't want to see content disappear). ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
These project are listed here and have their own articles, one mouse click away, so I see no reason for them to have their own sections. But if someone wants to add them (following WP:Summary style and without original speculations), let them go ahead but without "overengineering". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
Now, expecting further question about "In popular culture" section: Nearly all space opera operates on astronomical scale, routinely destroying and sometimes constructing planets. Therefore, per WP:TRIVIA, we may only add works of art which satisfy the criteria of non-trivial impact on the plot, such as the whole setting is within a ringworld or something, an important part of the plot is about some astroeng project, etc., and of course is some reliable source mentions some work as an example of astroeng. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree, WP:RS, etc., permitting. I don't have the desire to do nor check this, which is why I'm making it known here, but I was hoping that the #R'ing editor would at least be willing do part of that work, instead of just 'destroying' a 'competing', 6-year-older article. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am planning to work on it. As for competing, it is laughable offense. Originally I planned to merge into the 'competing' article, but stopped stort after noticing it is a piece of garbage and that the only references cited which are directly on the subject are using the term "Astronomical engineering". And I agree this choice is preferable, because the abbreviated term may refer to a narrower concept of engineering of stars. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
