Complete list, with blue links, pictures, reference. Rmhermen 14:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Comment, maybe check the list I reformatted (International Space Station spacewalks) as this is now featured; possibly borrow some of the formatting I used there. Will assist and eventually support: more astronomy and science lists have such potential to be featured! Phoenix2 17:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
SupportComment -- this is one great list, but the reference should be linked to the pdf file. =Nichalp«Talk»= 08:46, August 19, 2005 (UTC)=Nichalp«Talk»= 09:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Made direct link, separated into Reference, added couple external links. Rmhermen 15:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I will support this excellent list when it has some references - is the external link the reference? Some minor points: (i) I think it could do with a few more wikilinks - EVA, moonwalk, ALSEP, Cone crater, etc. (ii) Should there be a comma betwee "x h" and "y min"? (iii) It may be worth breaking the table down, say into decades (1960s, 1970s, etc), for ease of navigation. (iv) Why are the times for the last entry in EDT not UTC? (v) You could add some visual interest by, for example, adding nationalities for the cosmo/astronauts, perhaps using little ISOflags. - -- ALoan(Talk) 12:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(i) I made more links but note that moonwalk, spacewalk and EVA are all the same article. But I have only linked the first occurences of each term/name. (ii) No opinion. The two derivative lists are formated this way including the already featured one. NASA uses the ambiguous 2:45 format. (iii) I thought about that too. Maybe I'll try it - I am not great at tables. (iv) I am even worse at converting times. The list is in UTC and EDT is 4,5,6 hours different? Someone please help! (v) I am not sure this is a good idea. First it isn't that ineresting since virtually all will be American and Soviet/Russian. More difficult, though, a number of spacewalks have astronauts of multiple nationalities and I don't know how to easily put 2 flags in one box. Someday maybe even three. Rmhermen 15:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Object reluctantly until the time issue is dealt with, and references are added for the entries listed from 29 April1997. -- ALoan(Talk) 17:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. fulfills all the criteria -- Ian ≡ talk 06:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (I added year breaks BTW)[reply]
How are the year breaks supposed to display? Last night I saw them as thick grey lines, today they are wide blue bars. Why did they change? Rmhermen 14:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Yikes! Template got changed. Ãrticle should be OK now. -- Ian ≡ talk 14:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: There is one uncrossed out "object" here. It seems to have been a relatively minor one that has now been corrected (all the times are now in UTC and it is clear that this change has happened since ALoan made his comment). I'll therefore treat ALoan's objections as dealt with, and his vote as "neutral" (which is playing it safe as he indicated he would support if all his objections were dealt with). I'm therefore promoting the list on deemed 5-0 support, jguk 17:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[Visiting from Wales.] I had two objections - while the UTC point is dealt with, there are still no references for the list from 1997 (i.e. entries 155 to 245). That is not really good enough. -- ALoan(Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
