Archive Archive
older items

Your point taken re time zones at Parker Solar ProbeEdit

I saw your edit to my own addition to the article on Parker Solar Probe, and I want you to know that I see your point. I think I did it because so many of the news releases--presumably American (which includes NASA and Johns Hopkins)--were talking about the flyby happening on November 5; I thought it might be good to explain the seeming discrepancy. But you're right. No doubt, over the seven years of the mission, there will be other cases like that. Some things, the reader's just gotta work out for him or herself! Thanks! Uporządnicki (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We have this frequently in spaceflight articles. It is always a different day in a different place in the world (literally - time zones span more than 24h). We report UTC everywhere, local time for launches sometimes, and that's it. Adding a comment to every single time wouldn't make sense. --mfb (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Right. It struck me that most readers of the English language Wikipedia are probably in the United States or Canada. But still, I was overthinking a non-problem. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

note re cat category: 2018 timelines by countryEdit

hi. I tried to do what you said, and created a new category, Category: 2018 timelines by country, for all individual country timeline articles for 2018. Now I am being told the cat could be deleted, because they feel it is a duplicate of the cat category:2018 by country!! could you please comment at the entry for this category, at categroies for deletion? thanks!! here is the link!!

Link to entry: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_19#Category:2018_timelines_by_country --Sm8900 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

electronic harassment and targeted individual phenomenonEdit

Hi,

I noticed you reverted a change I made on the electronic harrassment wiki page. All of the information was sourced from the nytimes. Could you elaborate on why you reverted?PaulGosar (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss article-specific things on article talk pages. You removed "reportedly", you changed a referenced date (I can't access the book, however), you applied a (hand-waved) upper limit on a broad class of research to a subfield of it, to make it worse it was based on a very questionable source. Using the template cite journal is wrong for something that appeared on a preprint server only. The "other" fields on arXiv are known for questionable entries, and this one is in "other computer science" despite being not about computer science at all. The other paragraph you added has too many literal copies of the source and the source article doesn't have a high quality either. --mfb (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Surely. Thank you for your response and your efforts. I will implement the suggested changes.--PaulGosar (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: BEMER TherapyEdit

Hello Mfb. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of BEMER Therapy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising. Thank you. WBGconverse 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Now most of the article got deleted just from clean-up edits. --mfb (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Whilst it did not satisfy G11; you are free to take it to AfD. It's far away from my area of competency and I don't have any clue about whether it's notable or not. WBGconverse 09:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

BFREdit

Hey Mfb, would you kindly take a look at the recent-most edits of Soumya-8974 on the BFR page? I've reverted some of this editor before, and I want to be welcoming. But am unsure on the recent three edits, and would like to just defer to someone else looking at it seriously. I wish this editor would leave comments that might help one figure out what they are trying to accomplish. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine for Super Heavy but not for Starship. --mfb (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

ApologyEdit

Hey. I saw the message you had up on the Artemis program talk page before you removed it.

I want to apologize for my revert of your edit on the main article. I don't really know what I was thinking. I reverted my own revert a few minutes afterwards when I came to my senses, but I was heated at the time (for unrelated reasons), and wasn't really thinking. I now realize I shouldn't have reverted your edit to begin with.

Just wanted to explain what happened there and offer an apology for making some less-than-rational decisions. - Jadebenn (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --mfb (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

NASA Distinguished Service MedalEdit

Thanks for this edit. I don't know how I missed Jack King; that was one of my earliest Wikipedia BLP articles, a decade ago. (Sadly, King is no longer LP.) TJRC (talk) 23:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I just added links for everyone in the editor then looked in the preview where there might be articles. Where the link is blue check if it is the right person. Doesn't find everyone (Foo C. Bar might have the article Foo Bar and no redirect from Foo C. Bar) but works quite well. --mfb (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Astronaut/Space flight participantEdit

Hello!! I saw that you edited Hazza Al Mansouri as a "spaceflight participant" as "talk page". I found more information and already sent it to talk page about the definitions. I think that if we let him as just "spaceflight participant" we should make Marcos Pontes, Sheikh Muszaphar Shukor, Yi So-yeon that as well. Pontes case is weird, because he trained as a NASA astronaut but had his only Soyuz mission as a spaceflight participant (Soyuz TMA-8/Missão Centenário). Erick Soares3 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

An interesting case. Let's discuss there. --mfb (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Interplanetary Transport System vs. ITS launch vehicleEdit

Interplanetary Transport System

and ITS launch vehicle

Your question over on the BFR Talk page is a good one:

It is weird that Interplanetary Transport System redirects to the Mars article, not to the article about the proposed Interplanetary Transport System. Maybe we can fix that at some point, but I don't see the relevance here now. Just for the record: I always understood the discussion to be about the rocket article. --mfb (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is because the scope of the I.T.S. article back in the day, back when Musk first described ITS in 2016, was the entire "system", of which the launch vehicles were only one part, albeit the part that got the majority of the prose. Musk emphasized four things in the talk. The Mars fuel plant, the novel in-space refueling, etc.

WHen SpaceX changed the LV name, it became an article for the Mars transportation architecture, and later renamed to waht it is now.

But yeah, definitely not worth making the current disucssion even more complicated at present. N2e (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

PhotonEdit

Hi. In that case can you write what those studies were saying? --22merlin (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The one you added to "light" doesn't contribute to the topic. The one you added to "photon": I'm not sure if it is notable enough for that. "Coherent absorption of a photon by two distant atoms" or so. Note that this is a purely theoretical work. They didn't demonstrate it. They just showed it should be possible if some conditions can be met. --mfb (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Dowling-Neven lawEdit

Hard to call this obviously invented when IEEE and LSU have sources on it. Try AfD if it needs to go.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 05:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrictramp: Where? I didn't find any use of that name apart from Dowling himself. --mfb (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

possible article materialEdit

would you like to help add text to 2010s in science and technology? we have revised the article recently, so it is a bit easier to do so now. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Not much activity on the talk page but I still think several of these entries should be removed. I'll add some points later. --mfb (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding simplifying the graphs. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Tercer (talk) 11:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Concerning my edit to Timeline of the Far FutureEdit

I do not believe it is a gambler's fallacy. A major asteroid impact is said to happen roughly once every 100 million years. It's been 66 million years since the Chicxulub impact, therefore by 34my into the future, 100my after the last, another major asteroid impact will likely have happened. To make it clearer that it can happen at any time, I could change it to 30-40 million years from now that another one will have probably impacted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.211.7 (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You are repeating the gambler's fallacy. "Roughly every 100 million years" is an average rate. It doesn't mean there is a cosmic asteroid schedule where they come with 100 million years plus/minus a few separation. Two impacts can come just 1 million years apart, or 300 million, or whatever. It's like estimating the time until you roll the next 6 if you roll once per year: It's 6 years as expectation value, when you rolled the previous one doesn't matter - it's 6 years even if you didn't roll a 6 for the last 20 rolls. --mfb (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My earlier commentEdit

Sorry, I didn't get back to you earlier, real life has gotten in the way. I wanted to apologize if I came off as a little too brusque on Talk:Dubai Creek Tower I understand that the situation is frustrating, and that your addition although unsourceable was probably correct. I also aggree that while brief interruptions to construction should not result in a status change, that anything over a year should ideally be reflected in the article. However, when all is said and done Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia which means that it reflects verifiability, not truth. As a related example, I have personally observed construction at a location where the sources have neither updated from proposed, nor has a newspaper seen fit to report on the start, so I had too leave the buildings status in the article as is, even though that leaves it out-of-date, just read my edit summary. So anyway, hopefully the experience was not to discouraging and we can collaborate in the future. I'm not particularly active, but if you need help with tables, templates, lua scripts, and anything else and are willing to wait a few weeks, please drop me a line on meta and I'll see what I can do. Have a good one.

𝒬𝔔 20:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thirty Meter TelescopeEdit

OK well...I can see you have other disputes from the peace dove icon I created for DRN posted above where I volunteer. So....I will be sure and not attempt to mediate any content disputes you might have there in the future through that process. However, I am not trying to push a bias but I do feel it possible you might. If you wish to attempt to discuss this between us and maybe gather further community input, I am good with that but understand this is about your edit that removed wording in favor of other wording. Instead of reverting I edited out the weasel wording and then strengthened the claim with additional RS. But you have begun edit warring. Either one of us could be in violation of the 3 revert rule but I am reverting using Wikipedia guidelines and reliable sources. How would you like to proceed? 3RR discussion, reliable sources discussion, request for comment or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? I am not against proceeding to a noticeboard of your choice but I am trying to stick to Wikipedia Guidelines. As long as you are we should be able to work together.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That DRN notice above was a single editor who couldn't accept that no one else was the same opinion (archived). I think I have made it very clear how I would like to proceed: Discuss on the talk page if we should change the article relative to the previous version. BRD. I started a section there. --mfb (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand many of Wikipedia's guidelines, have a recent history of DRN for content disputes and have begun editing warring and making accusations I find kinda offensive, a little..if not racist, racial for no other reason than to accuse me of bias, yet your contributions show you have an extremely high bias towards science subjects. Could it be you lack the forethought to even see my own contributions to this article? I think so.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the guidelines, thanks. Did you look at the DRN? It's silly to point it out again. If you want to make a story of me being disruptive, use me being blocked in the German Wikipedia. For two minutes, because an admin clicked on the wrong link, but apparently context doesn't matter. Oh look, you had four real blocks in the past, most for edit warring. I'm a scientist, many of my edits are in science articles, sure. I have nothing to do with the TMT, however, apart from general interest in the topic. --mfb (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
My point is, I have used Wikipedia guidelines and added additional references to the already existing source. Block log? Please...you could use mine against me if you really wanted. That is not the point. Wikipedia encourages scientists and other experts to edit the project but neither my own support of one thing or another isn't relevant (I'm a Democrat but that doesn't mean I can't edit articles about Republicans or Democrats). The point is to edit without bias. Adding the word "Some" to that portion is adding doubt and reducing the references claim. I would also argue that it was analyzing the original source and coming to your own conclusion. Let's try to kove forward with some degree of understanding.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
How is it adding doubt? Doubt about what? By the way: "that some Native Hawaiians consider sacred" - usatoday.com --mfb (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Wow...been here since 2013 and doesn't understand Weasal Words like; "Some scientist say..." Which scientists? OK and then you also try and add content that is you own analysis of the source polling information to again justify some bias about Native Hawaiians finding Mauna Kea sacred. Houston..we have a problem.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh come on, 48%/44% is as close as it gets within uncertainties of these polls. But we can put in the numbers, no problem. --mfb (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop editing warring and adding weasal words intended as doubt. On this issue there is strict guidance. I have returned to the original wording of "Hawaiian culture" as the article states and removed two dangling references. Your intent is clearly to change Hawaiian or Hawaiian culture to just "some Hawaiians" has been challenged per guidelines and there exists no consensus for your changes.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's what the sources say. It's a well-sourced fact that some consider it sacred while some do not, writing otherwise is wrong. Phrased with "culture" it's better than before at least. Compromise proposal (yet another one from my side): We keep the culture as it is, change "to" to "in" (not a native speaker, but I'm quite sure it must be "in"), put the two sources back that you removed, and call it a day. I don't think it is a good solution because (as sourced) some Hawaiians think otherwise, but I think it's better than an ongoing edit war. --mfb (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll consider the lack of a reaction as no objection. --mfb (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Individual Falcon 9 boostersEdit

 

A tag has been placed on Category:Individual Falcon 9 boosters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Please check the edit history or the talk page of categories first before nominating them for deletion. --mfb (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Quasi-political issueEdit

Dear Mfb. You undid my edit to change a reference from Taiwan to ROC in Comparison of orbital launch systems. Your ostensible rationale for this is that the edit violated the policy on use of common name; however, the policy applies only to article titles. In that case, the article title itself is inaccurate (though I will not contest it at present) since the Taiwan article refers to the state entity officially named Republic of China, rather than to the physical island Taiwan. The usage of Taiwan versus ROC (even as a shorthand) obviously has political under and overtones; as a result, I think it's wiser to generally go with the entity's official name 'ROC' instead of 'Taiwan' when referring to the state until such time the state declares itself as Taiwan, otherwise this would be a violation of neutral viewpoint. Consequently, I'm likely to undo your revision. But I welcome your response prior to my action. Spotty's Friend (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You linked to Republic of China. We use Taiwan nearly everywhere, both in titles and articles, because Taiwan is easily understood while Republic of China frequently leads to confusion. This isn't about any political point of view, this is just about making life for readers easier. Taiwan won't get misunderstood. It is rare that we use the official long name of a country unless the article is about the political structure of that country. Similarly: We don't write Federal Republic of Germany, we write Germany. We don't write United Mexican States, we write Mexico. --mfb (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess this is a political issue after all. We use Germany rather the Federal Republic of Germany since there's no ambiguities and no political implications, but use of 'Taiwan' to refer to the state entity does have neutrality issues at this time regarding whether the island is part of China (use of 'ROC' would skirt this issue since the state itself uses the name.) It seems to me that we may have a common name versus neutral viewpoint clash of policies, and I for one opt for the latter. Spotty's Friend (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
In addition, we're talking about Wikipedia, a hyperlinked set of pages, so that any possible confusion re name can be easily resolved simply by adding a link. Spotty's Friend (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It is a column that lists countries. We clearly do not say China there, we say "whatever is on the island of Taiwan", which is commonly called Taiwan. Listing Taiwan as country and listing ROC as country look identical to me. The former is just easier to understand without requiring the reader to follow every link on the page. --mfb (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, here's the political controversy: there may be a plurality on the island of Taiwan, which includes its current president, that would probably like to declare independence from China and call itself something like a 'Republic of Taiwan', while a large minority on the island would like to continue with the status quo, which is calling itself 'Republic of China, province of Taiwan'. The People's Republic also wants to continue the status quo of 'One China' with two state entities, one called 'ROC' on the island of Taiwan, and had threatened to invade if the island's current government declares itself an independent country called Taiwan and dropping 'China' from its name. To skirt this issue, organizations such as the International Olympic Committee calls the Taiwan state entity 'China, Taipai' instead of 'Taiwan'. In light of this background, using 'Taiwan' to refer to the state entity is not politically neutral and implies an endorsement of Taiwan independence. So it's better to use ROC instead Taiwan as a politically neutral term at the expense of incurring the unbearable burden of following an additional link. This may also mean that at some point we'd need to move the Taiwan page itself to the Republic of China' page, while redirecting the former to the latter (lest current events supercede that need.) Spotty's Friend (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in China/Taiwan relations and I don't want to become one, but see above: All this doesn't really matter. Wikipedia isn't trying to make any political statement. We just use the commonly used name. If you think that name is ROC, then please suggest to move Taiwan. If that move gets consensus I'm happy to change all the articles to ROC. If there is consensus against, that means we should keep calling it Taiwan. The last move discussion was in 2014 and was opposed by everyone, referencing WP:COMMONNAME, that should give some indication how such a proposal would be received. --mfb (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, I've read quite a bit (not all) of the archived page-move discussion and I'm resigned to the fact that the 'Taiwan' page itself, and its use of the common name to refer to the state entity, likely will not be changed on Wikipedia until real-life political situations change. However, the discussion also shows that no decision was made re its use on other pages, depending on the situation. There's also a suggestion in the archived discussion on using the term 'Taiwan, officially known as the ROC', as is used on the 'Taiwan' page itself, when the situation warrants. In light of this, I think this suggested use would be a possible compromise to accommodate both the common name and neutral POV policies, at the expense of a few extra words, on the Comparison of orbital launch systems page. So I would be making this edit. This message is a courtesy notice, Spotty's Friend (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a really awkward option, making the name much longer than other names. If you want to change this please seek larger support first. We use Taiwan in tons of spaceflight articles and we should keep the consistency. So maybe a discussion in the spaceflight portal at the very least? --mfb (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, your above suggestions seem to be consistency and discussion overkill in view of the very small addition (4 words) that actually accommodate two distinct Wikipedia policies, and one that conforms to how the 'Taiwan' page's content refers to the state entity. It seems to me that we don't need to conform every instance of the national reference to some absolute minimal form, especially in view of the underlying political controversy. The addition of a few words avoid common misunderstandings and skirt any neutrality issues at the expense of minor wordiness. Since this is not a page-move request and it constitutes only a minor change of isolated links that enhances neutrality, it also seems a bit draconian to have to involve the entire community in a further long-winded discussion (and possible subsequent vote?) Cheers. Spotty's Friend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The article Taiwan has to mention the official name, of course, just like Germany does, that doesn't mean we should add it to every article. And yes, this needs more discussion if you want to change something, because otherwise we get back and forth in hundreds of articles on a daily basis. If you think this is silly for just one or two words then stop changing it. But don't do what you do now. This is the worst approach. --mfb (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I guess you leave me no choice but to take this to a discussion on the spaceflight portal, despite the fact that I have bent over backwards to address every complaint that you previously raised with respect said change; I suppose there's no way for me to address your apparent personal policy that, in this instance, favors stasis due to past and current usage. Note that when I do get around to raising this issue in discussion, I'll be proposing to use 'Taiwan ROC' as an equivalent form to 'Taiwan' rather than a superior form, so that there's no need for anyone to go around hunting down and changing every instance of either form. I'd also like to note that your reference to my re-editing your edits as the 'worst approach' is interesting; I'd just like to remind you of the following lyric from some song: 'It takes two to make it right,'; here, I'd paraphrase that lyric by saying that it takes two to make it wrong (or the 'worst'.) For some reason, the word 'Unsinn' comes to mind. Still, I'd like to remain civil and courteous as I suspect that you're acting out of a (stubborn) good faith in this matter and so I'd just wish you good day. I look forward to seeing you on the discussion portal, once I figure out how to do it properly. Spotty's Friend (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not my personal policy, it's the standard many users follow all over Wikipedia. Check the article of the rocket under discussion for another example. Persistent article changes away from the standard without prior consensus is the worst approach I think.
You can just start an informal discussion, the need for a more formal process as follow-up (RFC?) might arise as part of the discussion. --mfb (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Muon g-2Edit

g-2 was indeed a set of CERn experiments http://library.cern/archives/CERN_archive/guide/experimental_physics/SC/isamuon but I see your point. To work around it and to make the experiment appear in the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CERN_experiments , I crated a redirecting page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muon_g-2_(CERN)&redirect=no Bibliophilen (talk)

That is a good solution I think. --mfb (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Why so pessimistic?Edit

Regarding your change from "unaffected" to "without confirmed cases", I mean. Not saying you're wrong, and not saying I'm right, but these places have more than just a lack of medical tech and logisticians in common. They are also effectively self-isolated and socially distant, since before it was cool. The coronavirus might just have difficulty swimming across salt water, permeating a no-man's land or figuring out what the point in moving to Tajikistan might be. Ever think the hope glass could just be 5% full, for a change? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

For the island countries the outlook is good, but the countries in Africa and Asia? Pakistan found 14 cases coming from Syria - despite having no shared land border - a week before Syria announced its first case. Anyway, we shouldn't speculate. "Unaffected" is speculation, "no confirmed cases" is what we know. --mfb (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
That's true enough. For all we know, one of those exotic locales may have been where whatever mystery meat wound up on a Wuhan street used to be the last of its kind. If I were that entirely hypothetical government, I'd keep quiet, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Gateway (Lunar Gateway)Edit

On the NASA website, mention is made of Gateway and no longer Lunar Gateway. And in NASA's budget proposal for 2021 (1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021), mention is made of Gateway. Can I change the name or can you do it? At your convenience. Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know which article you refer to. Gateway alone is ambiguous. --mfb (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Gateway (space station) is not ambiguous. Find me a single reference on the NASA site that says "Lunar Gateway"? — CRS-20 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I still don't know which article you refer to. --mfb (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 05:28, 29 March 2020 Dicklyon (Reverted to revision 947735586 by Mfb (talk): Rv to before undiscussed name change (TW)): you see. — CRS-20 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I still don't know which article you refer to. Well, I looked it up via Dicklyon's contributions now: This edit by User:Dicklyon. Why don't you ask them? Or propose a move on the talk page, that's what you should normally do if a move might be controversial. I had absolutely nothing to do with this move and its revert. I just happened to be the last user to edit the page before you started undiscussed large-scale edits. --mfb (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@CRS-20: Right, what Mfb said. If you want to change the name, use the process at WP:RM#Requesting_a_single_page_move. Files at NASA that use the term "Lunar Gateway" are easy to find. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: These are not references from NASA, but from Google and they are old. On March 31, 2020, it was called Gateway (space station). https://www.nasa.gov/topics/moon-to-mars/lunar-gateway Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
These are Google hits for "Lunar Gateway" on nasa.gov sites. You can restrict to the latest month and still find a few. Even that one you link calls it "Lunar Gateway" in places. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Yes, but if you click on this link it will take you to the "Gateway" page only. Last page of the Gateway https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-artemis-contract-for-gateway-logistics-services Cordially. — CRS-20 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article talk page. --mfb (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)