Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Human spaceflight task force/Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Human-rated launch vehicles

I'd like to see better coverage in Wikipedia of what makes for a so-called "Man-rated" launch vehicle. These are (obviously) launch vehicles appropriate for human spaceflight launches. But from the perspective of the launch vehicle, what exactly does that mean? Does it e.g. require a pad-abort escape system? Does it preclude vehicles which undergo high acceleration? What else? Is there already on article that covers this material? (Sdsds - Talk) 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – See Human-rating certification (sdsds - talk) 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Astronaut bios

FYI I attempted to start a dialog on this at Template talk:WPBiography#Astronaut bios. (sdsds - talk) 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Shuttle ISS mission

In an attempt to improve consistency between articles, I have used Template:Shuttle ISS mission in the lead sentence of many of the older Shuttle missions to ISS. I haven't used it in several of the more recent "return to flight"-related missions. I'm not sure -- is consistency of those articles with the older ones at all desirable? (sdsds - talk) 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, here are:

• a list of pages that use {{Shuttle ISS mission}}
• a list of pages that use {{Shuttle Mir mission}}
• a list of pages that use {{Soyuz ISS mission}}

This work is not yet complete, although Shuttle/Mir might be close at this point. (sdsds - talk) 06:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Added userbox/category

I've created a userbox for HSF:

This user is a member of
WikiProject Spaceflight.

{{User HSF Project}}

I have also created the appropriate category for the project. Since the proposal would not affect either the HSF project, nor its parent project, this should have no issues should the proposal go through. Input is appreciated! ^Ariel♥Gold 04:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's got to be said, that looks very good indeed - we're finally beginning to get ourselves sorted, it seems. Next up we need to have a discussion as to who wants to do what, and possibly if someone much more talented than I at animations were to make us up a Wiki Advert? Poyekhali! Colds7ream 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blush, thank you so much! I'm a pro with Photoshop so it wasn't really too hard to figure out how to make a nice looking Userbox, I've made a few others just because I didn't like the existing options lol. (i.e. I made a girlie version of the "This page has been vandalized XX times" lol) However, animations, I'm not so great with, lol. I can do them, but I don't enjoy them really at all, hopefully someone else who likes doing them will take that project on! ^Ariel♥Gold 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

An Idea for a Bot.

What do we think: a bot that looks at the launch date of a mission, and places a future spaceflight template or countdown template (as appropriate) on the top of the article, automatically editing the countdown box as the launch approaches? We could call it CountBot, or something similarly unimaginative! ;-) Any thoughts? Colds7ream 10:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a great idea! I think we should first establish the policies we want the bot to follow. (e.g. how long before launch does it first insert {{launching}}?) It then wouldn't hurt to manually implement those policies for awhile to see if everyone likes the result. This would hopefully avoid having a bot that didn't do what everyone wanted! Questions: Do we already have those policies stated someplace? Would this be only for human spaceflights or all spaceflights? (sdsds - talk) 05:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As ever, there's some dispute on the boundaries for the different launching templates, but the consensus seems to be that the launching template appears at L-two weeks. Colds7ream 21:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Expert needed

List of private spaceflight companies is in need of help from someone who knows the subject well — Jack · talk · 21:28, Wednesday, 29 August 2007

Current status section for Shuttle OV articles

Resolved

 – "Current status" sections added to articles for all three active shuttles. (sdsds - talk) 06:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose this wikiproject take the responsibility to add and maintain a Current status section in the articles about each of the Space Shuttle orbital vehicles (i.e. Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour). These would be sourced from NASA's Space Shuttle Processing Status Reports, and from other sources as appropriate to address WP:NPOV concerns. For instance, based on this report, we would add to the Discovery article:

Current status

Discovery is currently in Orbiter Processing Facility bay 3. The payload bay doors are now closed for rollover to the Vehicle Assembly Building, which is scheduled for 19 September.^[n]

Does this make sense as an activity for this wikiproject? (sdsds - talk) 22:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - the kind of thing we should assign to a taskforce, perhaps? Colds7ream 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Space travellers merge

FYI, I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space travellers#Merge proposal to merge that wikiproject into this one. (sdsds - talk) 06:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – (sdsds - talk) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ToDo list?

Hey everyone, I'm pretty new to editing in Wikipedia, but am interested in helping out on this project. I am interested in anything that is space related.

So with that in mind, is there a "ToDo" list here? Things (articles that need editing, expanding, creating etc.) that I could work on? Rocketmaniac 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome! There are indeed many things to do on spaceflight-related articles. One of the nicest aspects of this general subject is the availability of great reliable sources on e.g. nasa.gov. What wikipedia space articles mainly need is better source referencing -- it would be great if readers could verify nearly every assertion made in a wikipedia article by following cited references that led to nasa.gov (or other reliable source) documents. The backlog of unsourced assertions can be pretty daunting, though. (Read just about any article with a critical eye and you'll likely see what I mean!) But getting in the habit of citing a source for every new addition is certainly a good idea.

Again, welcome. And as regards to do lists, there are probably several around. Feel free to look at Portal talk:Spaceflight/to do, for example. (sdsds - talk) 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I will take a look for articles needing referencing. Would it benefit this WikiProject (or any other WikiProject for that matter), to have a section called ToDo Lists? Or is that too close to taskforces?

Oh by the way, do members here ever communicate by email, or just with this discussion page? Rocketmaniac 02:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A good place to look for articles needing additional references might be Pages in category "Start-Class space exploration articles". (There are a lot of them!) The idea of having a to-do list is a good one -- but who would maintain it? As for email, it probably gets some use, but the advantage of using this (or an article-specific) discussion page is that the entire community can easily be part of the conversation, even taking up a discussion thread days, weeks, months or years later! (sdsds - talk) 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a ToDo list to the main project page where the taskforce list used to be; I figure it'll be more useful, as we have lots of things that we need to be doing, but no taskforces! :-) Colds7ream 13:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Next shuttle mission redirect

I propose this wikiproject take responsibility for maintaining a Next shuttle mission redirect page. Updating this would add yet another thing to do around the time of each mission, but we (judging by recent missions) seem to have plenty of enthusiastic editors at those times. Is there already somewhere a list of Wikipedia edits to make when a shuttle launches? (sdsds - talk) 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan - although it would need changing after each mission, such a page would greatly simplify edits to pages which have a reference to the next one - we'd only need to change one page each time! Colds7ream 10:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea. One question, where is this article listed from? (ie, where does a user get redirected from?) If you search for just "shuttle mission" this article is not found. The first article listed is "list of shuttle missions" We need to edit this article to include "next shuttle missions" in the "see also" right? Rocketmaniac 01:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Y The redirect now points to STS-122, since Discovery has become a current mission. I agree a link from the somewhere in the list of space shuttle missions article makes sense. Maybe in the "see also" section; maybe in text near the top? Also, maybe it could be linked from the Portal:Spaceflight page somewhere? (sdsds - talk) 17:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Question

I've been working on the article on Richard H. Truly since is on the Pages in category "Start-Class space exploration articles". The paragraph starting "Three weeks after" has a different line spaceing than the rest of the article. Why? I don't see anything obvious. What am I missing? Thanks Rocketmaniac 01:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you missed anything, it was just all double-spaced, which it shouldn't have been (WP:MOS). I've fixed it, and added sections to align it with biographies (WP:BIO), and updated the reference list to the newer template. Looks good, nice job! Ariel♥Gold 01:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WOW, you made it look so much better. How did you do all of the updates on the stuff towards the bottom of the article? Did you use some template or something? Or just do all that work from the "External Links" and below? LOL, I guess I've got a lot to learn here.

It must be my monitor, because I still see a difference in line spaceing in that paragraph. Rocketmaniac 02:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, yeah I don't see any difference. That line could probably be added to the above paragraph, though. I'll work on all the references tomorrow and make them a lot easier to read. I didn't really do much other than add sections and fix spacing issues, lol. The bottom navigation templates were all there already. Ariel♥Gold 02:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the variation you're seeing in line height could be a result of the presence or absence of superscripted text in the line below? (sdsds - talk) 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I guess I'm not crazy after all. Rocketmaniac 05:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, yeah it could be because there is a very small difference if a line has a reference. I guess I don't even notice it, lol. Ariel♥Gold 01:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting data (date)

While updating the article on Richard H. Truly it has come to my attention that there is conflicting data about the when Truly became the 8th Administrator of NASA. In the following article is saying July 1st. http://www.astronautscholarship.org/truly.html But with this source it says May 14th. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Biographies/truly.html

Out of the two, the second one is a NASA source so I would tend to believe it more. BUT what do I do? Rocketmaniac 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The NASA site says "Administrator: May 14, 1989- March 31, 1992", and the scholarship site says: "On June 30, 1989, Truly concluded his 30-year Navy career, retiring as a vice admiral. The next day he was named to head NASA as its eighth administrator" However, The National Renewable Energy Laboratory confirms NASA's information: "Truly was NASA Administrator from May 1989 to March 1992." I would use (and believe) those two references, and not the scholarship site, personally. Additionally, James C. Fletcher, the preceding Administrator served until April 1989, so this would further seem to back up the NASA info. Ariel♥Gold 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So would you say that he retired in May? Or did he spend a few months in the Navy AND administrator? Rocketmaniac 01:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably avoid mentioning the date he retired, instead just saying he retired shortly before beginning as administrator, which seems accurate given the information available. The exact dates aren't integral to the context of the article, IMO. Ariel♥Gold 02:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Flag icon use

Per the manual of style on flag icon use, flags should be used sparingly, and not used in the article prose. Flags should also not emphasize nationality without a good reason, "Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things." NASA represents the US, and it is a given that NASA astronauts represent America. However, when the astronauts on missions are representing countries other than NASA, it is appropriate to specify this, although the MOS would still discourage the use of the flag icon. The icons are quite distracting when 6/8 people listed on a mission article have US flags next to them. Note that this has nothing to do with national pride, or with national identity, but simply used sparingly to help a reader, and not to decorate. To this end, USA astronauts need not have the flag icon next to them, as it is obvious they represent America by being with NASA. This is a relatively new guideline, so many people may not be familiar with it, so this is why I'm bringing the issue here for discussion. Thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Starting a new article

Hey, I've been working on a new article. It's a list of the most cumulative EVA time. Right now, it's only in my work area. User:Rocketmaniac/EVA Record What do I need to do now? Do you see anything that I need to add to it before it goes "live"? And how do I move it to the live/real area? Thanks Rocketmaniac 13:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks quite useful! One comment, though, regarding the flags. It seems you have chosen to use for spacewalkers the flags of the nations which currently control the locations of their births. This isn't the wikipedia "standard" thing to do. First, are you sure a flag is beneficial? Are you trying to represent some characteristic of the spacewalks themselves (i.e. the space agency that supported them, or the type of equipment used) or some characteristic of the spacewalkers at the time of spacewalking (i.e. their citizenship) or something about where they were born? Whatever the characteristic is, why is it significant to the reader? (Personally, I now defer to the wikibiography trend of showing the nation which controlled the location of the birth at the time of the birth.) (sdsds - talk) 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not truely think out the whole flag thing. I simply copied the idea from the List of astronauts by name. The flags can be changed or deleted. What other things need change or improvements? Is it ready to go "live"? Rocketmaniac 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Per the Manual of style WP:FLAG, "Do not emphasize nationality without a good reason". For this list, nationality has nothing to do with ability, so linking to their space agency would be more appropriate, IMO, i.e. NASA, RSA, CSA, ESA, etc. (Only one link needed, subsequent mentions don't need to be linked.) So, for example, it would be:

Number	Astronaut	EVAs	HH	MM
1	Anatoly Solovyev, RSA	16	82	22
2	Michael Lopez-Alegria, NASA	10	67	40

The WP:FLAG guideline is now moving away from using flags in actor/actress infoboxes, people infoboxes, etc., except in special cases. Flag icons are distracting, and what was happening was one person would add the country flag, then someone would add the state flag, then someone else would add another flag, and it was just getting out of control, which is part of the reason WP:FLAG came to be. Hope that helps explain the flag thing! And cool list, btw! (And oy! List of astronauts by name should probably have all those flags removed, they really aren't relevant, and they are pretty distracting. Big job, lol. Not sure I'm up for that currently.) Ariel♥Gold 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've now removed all the flags and have added their Space Agency. Unless I am mistaken, the top 30 only has member of NASA or RSA. Anyway, it done. I'm really ready to "publish" this thing. Please tell me how to move it from my little area to the real Wikipedia. And I'll tackle the removing the flags from the List of astronauts by name next. Rocketmaniac 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I edited your list a bit, I put the agencies in column, specified spacing for the columns, added images (I'm going to find one of Lopez-Alegria since he's at the top, and try to find one for Solovyev we can use), and I put colored spacers every 5 people to make it distinguishable. I also put the reference into citation template, but it should be noted that the CBS list says it is a "list of ISS EVAs". Does it count those done that were not in relation to ISS? If not, and if that would change the stats, then it would need to be qualified, to specify this is only relating to ISS assembly. Ariel♥Gold 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what an improvement. It is my understanding that while the CBS EVA page says "list of ISS EVAs" that contains 2 sets of data. One on the left is the data concerning the ISS. And on the right is the total cumulative EVA records. To support that idea, look at Anatoly Solovyev's page. He had nothing to do with the ISS, yet you racked up 16 EVAs. Rocketmaniac 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew Anatoly hadn't been to ISS, so it must be including others. Good to know. Let me get the images uploaded and then it could probably be moved tomorrow, if you think it is ready? Are there any other sources out there we could use? I can hunt around NASA site. Ariel♥Gold 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Other sources include http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/other/eva_dur.sht But I don't about the data. Example; Sergey Avdeyev is listed with 10 EVAs for 41 hours and 49min. CBS states he has 8 EVAs for 41 hours and 00min. And then there is http://www11.jsc.nasa.gov/history/walking/EVAChron.pdf, (only covers EVAs up to 1997) http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/EVA/EVA_totals_table.html and list of spacewalks and moonwalks. Rocketmaniac 04:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Yeah I think the NASA one, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/EVA/EVA_totals_table.html is the most reliable, but even that doesn't seem to mesh 100% with our numbers in various other articles here. And, it isn't updated right away. I actually have the current numbers of hours/EVAs done from ISS, and the totals for some astronauts, but not all. I think your list will be a great addition! Ariel♥Gold 14:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the images, First, second, fifth, and seventh spot astronauts featured in images. I also moved the time into one column to make it easier to read (HH:MM), and added a "See also" section, and categories. Now, a proper name of the article needs to be determined, per WP:NAME. Any suggestions? List of Extra-vehicular time records? Ugh kind of bulky sounding. Any ideas? Ariel♥Gold 16:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like "List of astronauts with greatest amounts of EVA time"? Or "... with most EVA experience"? (sdsds - talk) 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the first one better, if it was "experience", that would include training, and Parazynski is top for that (according to NASA PAO), he's had more cumulative time training and in actual EVAs than anyone in the history of the space program. The name still seems a bit bulky or awkward to me though. I'm thinking per WP:NAME, it should be something simple to search for, and yet accurately reflect the content. I'm at a loss for this one, lol. Maybe Rillian or DJ can offer some thoughts. Ariel♥Gold 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What about something with "cumulative time" in it? Because it's not just time records. That would be things like longest EVA, shortest EVA, most EVAs in a single shuttle mission etc. Rocketmaniac 18:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done New article located at List of cumulative spacewalk records. Nice job, RM! Ariel♥Gold 13:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed Flag icons from "list of astronaunts"

After seeing the dicussion in the above section, I removed all the flag icons from List of astronauts by name. When I was 80% done, I got a message from another editor questioning why I was removing these icons. Here is the comment left on my user page. User talk:Rocketmaniac. Did I screw up and is really the correct style? Rocketmaniac 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Refer the mto WP:FLAG and Talk:Expedition 16, but the irony is that I had just asked Rillian to take a look at that discussion, because I value his input as a fellow project member (and I hadn't seen his note to you, or even noticed your edits to the above page, lol). Some people just like the flags, but they are not encouraged per the manual of style, as they put undue weight on nationality when it shouldn't be, which in the case of astronauts, has no bearing on their ability, or their duties. Of course, that's just my opinion, but several others agree on the Expedition 16 talk page, (you may want to go check that and offer your own opinion as well). I'm not anti-flag, or anti-patriotism or whatever, I just think that some articles use these as decoration (like actor/actress articles) and it really is distracting, and unnecessary, per WP:FLAG.

However, that being said, just removing the flags, without replacing them with the agency they represent isn't helpful to the readers. In lieu of USA flag, it should have the agency, such as NASA, RSA, ESA, CSA, JAXA, etc., as mentioned above. See Expedition 16. It might be helpful to revert the article back to the flag version so the nationality is there, and then replace them with the agency link, as now that the flags aren't there, it wouldn't be possible to know what agency each person represented. Again, just my thoughts. (Also it might be helpful to edit the entire page, and use the "preview" feature so you don't have to do a whole ton of edits, it is really helpful to use that to be able to see your changes as you go along.) Ariel♥Gold 01:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have undone all of my edits to the list of astronauts. I am sorry. I was just trying to help. Can you (or someone else) help me finish/publish the EVA record page? (So I can at least have done something right today) Rocketmaniac 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, please. Your intent was good, and in line with the manual of style on flag icon use, and the current thoughts of those involved in the project who have commented on it. It is not a big deal, I think we can just add another column to that table to indicate the agency instead. Nothing urgent, please do not feel bad, okay? You've done a great job. See my above note about your table. Ariel♥Gold 02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, I am editing the List of astronauts by name again. This time I'm doing it first in my work area. I am about halfway done. I should have it done Friday night or Saturday. For a quick peek, here it is; User:Rocketmaniac/List of Astronauts Rocketmaniac 02:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggested page move

I'd like to propose that the Salyut article be moved to the Salyut Program or Salyut Project page, as the title it currently has suggests that there was only one station rather than many, doesn't fit with the titles of similar pages (such as Shuttle-Mir Program and because a 'Salyut' can be other things as well as space stations, e.g. the Russian word for 'firework' or 'salute'. What do we think? Colds7ream 13:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved the 'Salyut' page to Salyut Program. Colds7ream (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization standardization

Recently, several articles have been moved which have the words "space shuttle" in the title, to capitalize the words "Space Shuttle", with the summary "Space Shuttle is always capitalized". I think we should clarify standardization, as this is technically incorrect. The shuttle is not a proper noun, nor is orbiter, unless they are used in conjunction with a specific, named orbiter, such as Space Shuttle Discovery (NASA, and the media, don't always capitalize space shuttle, even then, but on Wikipedia, we do consider that a proper noun). Please refer to NASA's own shuttle page, which has the header image seen here: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/133493main_openingtext2c.gif, and at the left, a "Fact" box, which this month has: "Mission STS-122 will be the eighth time space shuttle Atlantis has visited the International Space Station.", as well as NASA's technical documents, which do not capitalize orbiter, or or shuttle, here, NASA's recent recap of STS-120, here, along with the media, as seen from The Associated Press, Aviation Week, Space.com and CBS. It is a common misconception, but it is like saying that "sedan" is capitalized, or "hatchback", when referring to a car. If the car's name has "Sedan" in it, then it is capitalized, but when speaking of a generic sedan, it is not. I plan on requesting that the articles be returned to their original titles, where they have been since creation, but I think we should have this in a central location for reference, thus my posting here. The precedence for this naming on Wikipedia can be seen in the Featured List, List of space shuttle missions, which would not have been featured had it been named improperly, and the peer review of Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, a featured article, which also concurs. "The article capitalizes "shuttle" in many places, I think incorrectly. Space shuttle isn't a proper noun so should be lower-case." (after which, those changes were made and the article was promoted to FA status later). Finally, I refer to Webster's dictionary definition, which does not capitalize it, and clarifies it is not a proper noun: [1] "Main Entry: space shuttle, function: noun, definition: A reusable spacecraft designed to transport people and cargo between earth and space." Confirmed by The American Heritage Dictionary: here. And, the precedence for Wikipedia's use of capitalization when combined with a specific orbiter name is available on any of the shuttle mission pages. Thoughts? Ariel♥Gold 12:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Flag issue again

I just wanted to bring up the "flag icon" issue for discussion again. I am interested in improving on the List of astronauts by name article again, but want my time and energy to be headed in the right direction. One thing I see is that the flag icons are so small that it is very hard to tell what country each one represents. So, what good are they really doing? In my user area I have a copy of the article with the flag icons removed and the space agency added. User:Rocketmaniac/List of Astronauts Would adding a column for the birth place do the same as what the flags are doing now? What is the consensus? Rocketmaniac (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Delta-v (physics) for deletion

Delta-v (physics) has been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta-v (physics). A suggestion has been made to perhaps merge with Delta-v, the orbital dynamics article. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A few points of standardization

Hello all. For a project lately, I've glanced at the articles for every manned flight from 1961 to 1996...and in doing so I've noted several formatting inconsistencies that I was thinking of going about correcting. But, of course, in doing so I'd be establishing a standard format, so I thought I'd best make sure people around here agree with it.

Launch/Landing Time Format

Problem: For Soviet/Russian flights, they're provided in UTC. For American ones prior to the Space Shuttle, they're also provided in UTC. For most (but not all) Space Shuttle Flights, they're provided in a hodgepodge of EST/EDT and PST/PDT.

Proposal: Convert all the times to UTC (at the same time, checking them against reliable sources, such as NASA). Wikilink UTC when using it.

Launch/Landing Time Precision

Problem: Sometimes it's a launch at 12:30, other times it's one at 16:53:12.003.

Proposal: Go with HH:MM:SS. It's precise without overdoing it. Of course, if the data aren't there, may have to just use HH:MM. But drop the fraction of a second.

Duration

Problem: Besides the flight durations listed sometimes being wrong (at least, if one assumes the launch/landing times are right), they're also formatted quite differently. Some articles say "13 days 20 hours 12 minutes 44 seconds," others would give that as "13d/20:12:44." Or as "332h, 17m 3s." There are several other possible variations I've seen. Sometimes "day" and the like are wikilinked. Sometimes not.

Proposal: For compactness, I vote for "13d/20:12:44."

Crew Flight Number

Problem: Most, though not all, of the articles give a number in parentheses next to the name of each crew member, indicating how many spaceflights he or she has participated in, up to an including this one. Many of the articles also don't bother to specify to the confused reader exactly what that number in parentheses means. Other articles list in parentheses verbatim the missions the crewmember has flown and will fly from this point.

Proposal: Keep using parenthesis system with numbers only...add it to those articles which lack it. Make sure there's a note in each instance to indicate what the number means.

Flags

Problem: A few articles have nation flags next to the names of the crew, especially when the crew is of mixed national origin. Others don't use them.

Proposal: Add them for all crew. Don't really have much of a great argument...I just like the aesthetic. They're used to good effect in the detailed lists under List of human spaceflights.

Mission Roles

Problem: Sometimes it's "Jon Doe (5) - Lunar Module Pilot." Other times it's "Lunar Module Pilot: John Doe (5)"

Proposal: I vote for the first one, sometimes because there weren't roles, and so if you were expecting to see "Role: Astronaut" and just instead see "Astronaut," it's less out of place than seeing it if you were expecting the role to be tacked on at the end.

Degrees

Problem: Some later articles list DVM, Ph.D., MD and other such degrees after the name of the crew member. Most don't, though.

Proposal: Drop them. I don't think it's necessary...you can go to their bio if you want the extra info.

Backup Crew/Alternate Crew

Problem: Sometimes Alternate crew, primarily for shuttle flights, are listed with the main crew as follows:

• Bob Johnson (2) - Payload Specialist 1
• Joe Anderson (1) - Mission Specialist 1

• Helen White - Alternate Mission Specialist

• Jennifer Ismat - Commander

In articles for flights where there's a full backup crew, the backup crew is listed as a separate sub-header under prime crew (any of the apollo articles show the format I'm talking about).

Proposal: For consistency, any crew that didn't fly should be listed in a separate subsection under the prime crew section, rather than mixed in with the names of the prime crew.

There are probably a few other things, but I've gone on long enough. Anyway, as said, I thought it might be nice to try and get some consistent formatting, and so these are the changes I would like to get to work on making, provided no one around here has any vehement objections.

Munion (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I like/agree with your proposals on just about all of the items you listed. The idea about the flags needs to be debated. There have been a few sections in this Talk page on this subject, see "Flag icon use", "Starting a new article", and "Removed flag icons from list of Astronaunts". For the articles that only have the tiny flag icons, I don't see the value in them. They are so small, it's sometimes hard to tell which flag is which. With larger flags, this is not a problem. Back a few weeks ago when I got the feeling that the flag icons were being done away with, I spend the time and edited the "list of Astronaunts". One can find the version without flag icons here User:Rocketmaniac/List of Astronauts

As far as removing PhD and MD etc. after a persons name, I see both sides. While you can go to their bio to see this info, it has been neat to see. I have found myself saying "oh, he/she is a doctor" while reading a launch article. Rocketmaniac (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I admit that the flags are probably not really vital...I just think they look cool. I'll leave them off...can always put them on later. As to your list of astronauts, I think it looks fine...having the column for agency is probably really more important than birthplace. Take Michael Foale, for example. Yes, he's a dual citizen of the US/UK, but he's a member of NASA. His activities in space reflect on the efforts of NASA, not of the UK.

As to the postnominal letters, one other problem I can forsee is, if we keep them on, then when you see an astronaut without such letters, you assume they don't have a Ph.D. or what have you. But, in reality, maybe we just don't know or have the sources to find out. Also we might generate a debate over which letters are worth including and which not. Thus, I still come down against letters. Munion (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I sure would like others to join this discussion about the flags. (hint, hint) I would not be opposed to adding a column for birthplace also. It might actually be neat to see where all these old (60's) astronaunts were born.

As to the postnominal letters, I'm not dead-set on them. One can always go to their bio to see if they have any special degrees. Rocketmaniac (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Mission standards is that for shuttle missions, on ground activities are given in local time, if that is KSC, then it is EST/EDT. If the shuttle lands in California (EAB) then the time is PST/PDT. On-orbit activities are given in UTC. This is the format NASA uses, and the format that was determined for Project Space Missions. I for one, think it makes sense, and since the minority of readers will actually be in UTC, or know how many hours ahead/behind UTC they are, I'm not sure that changing all times to UTC is beneficial to an average reader. A note as to launch/landing times: Launch time in seconds is a valid thing, however, at least with shuttle missions, landing time in seconds is problematic, since there are actually a number of events. Technically, once the rear wheels touch down, the shuttle has landed. However, the nose gear touchdown is also important, as is wheel stop, and people argue over which is actually the official "time of landing". For the infobox, HH:MM should suffice, and the details can easily be covered in article prose.

WP:FLAG specifically says that flags are not to be used for decoration, or to emphasize nationality without a valid reason, and should not be used in article space. Flag icons are visually distracting, and designed for use in extensive tables, not for use in article prose. Nationality has no bearing on an astronaut's job, or the mission. Agency is the more important identifier for astronauts, ESA, JAXA, CSA, RSA, NASA, etc. Nationality is only relevant with regards to ESA astronauts, as many countries are represented. See the discussion at Talk:Expedition 16, but I'm against flag use in mission article space, as it is against the manual of style, and it is visually distracting, as well as placing undue emphasis on nationality. Going hand-in hand with this is mention of what nationality someone was at the time of launch, I see this as unnecessary information.

Agree that Ph.D., M.D., etc, is not necessary information for the mission article. It is in their bio, and just as nationality, it is not necessary to mention in context of the mission. Having or not having a Ph.D. does not change what their duties are in space.

Re: Backup Crew: The format must have changed from the Apollo/Mercury era, now the way it is done is that the crew is listed, and under it is a subsection called "Crew notes", that gives backup crew information, or original crew assignments, etc., Agree standardization would be good. Ariel♥Gold 12:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Crew Tables

As part of my above-mentioned project to increase consistency in articles, I've slowly been going through and modifying the list of crews for each flight. However, now that I've done about 100 of them, I was thinking of changing the design into a table. I've got an example at user:Munion/STS-61-A. There are two example crew tables in the context of an article...one that went with the original STS-61-A article, and one I stole from Soyuz 4. If anyone would like to look at the originals, look at my proposed design, and comment, I would be most appreciative. Munion (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. Nice work. I like the style of the tables, but I'd make the background color a little less bright. What you think about any of these;

Colors

Name	Hex (RGB)	Red (RGB)	Green (RGB)	Blue (RGB)	Hue (HSL/HSV)	Satur. (HSL)	Light (HSL)	Satur. (HSV)	Value (HSV)
Wheat	#F5DEB3	96%	87%	70%	39°	77%	83%	26%	96%
Navajo white	#FFDEAD	100%	87%	68%	32°	100%	84%	27%	100%
Tan	#D2B48C	82%	71%	55%	34°	44%	69%	33%	82%
Khaki	#C3B091	76%	69%	57%	37°	29%	67%	26%	76%

Yea I know, I'm like shades of brown. But some shades of blue would work also. Rocketmaniac (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the color I used is actually Navajo White (though, with the surrounding contrast, it does look brighter than your sample above). I picked it to match the color being used in the infoboxes. But I'm not attached to it. I think substituting in Wheat looks good...it's similar in color but a bit smoother. Munion (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice work! I'm concerned about a cluster of issues regarding nationality, though. Starting with an easy one: the use of "Germany" in your sample STS-61-A article. Did a country with that name exist at the time of that mission? Then next, regarding the column labeled "Citizenship at Launch", is it necessary to be specific about "at Launch"? Apparently at least one cosmonaut launched as a citizen of the Soviet Union and returned to Earth as a citizen of Russia, but isn't that a special case that could be handled in just that one cell in just that one table? Then thirdly, regarding the use of flags, what is the advantage of this over simple text? (It certainly is eye-catching, but that might be a two-edged sword that does as much harm as good, i.e. "flag-waving" is almost by definition nationalistic, and it thus fails the WP:NPOV criteria.) Finally, on an unrelated stylistic note, have you carefully considered the choice of capitalization for captions and headers? (Wikipedia style traditionally involves many fewer capitalized words than other styles in e.g. article titles and section headings.) (sdsds - talk) 07:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Germany thing was just a flub on my part, thanks for catching that. As to the "At launch," I suppose I was thinking about that particular cosmonaut in the back of my mind, as well as wondering if people would confuse a person's current citizenship with historical, but I agree it's probably not needed. Especially because, if the column header says "at launch," but then the landed crew might be given in the table, if different.

Flags: I feel like the eye-catching may be useful in some situations. On a multinational shuttle mission, for example, a quick scan instantly puts into your mind that this is a multinational mission. You might click the article thinking, "Hey, a shuttle mission launched by the US. Must be full of US astronauts," but then you notice all the German flags and realize that there's more going on. I suppose I have in mind people who might be semi-skimming, as I sometimes do. On the downside, there are a lot of times when it is just people from the USA or USSR and so flags would probably be pointless. As to flag-waving, I don't know if in this particular case adding flags is any more nationalistic than the whole emphasis placed on nationality in the articles, which take time out to speak of the first person from country X in space. All that said, though, I'm not attached to the flags, so if they might be trouble, and if there's no one gung-ho in favor of them, I'm perfectly willing to pass on them.

Capitalization: Hadn't really given detailed thought to it, nope. I can see changing "Launched (or Backup) Crew" to "Launched (or Backup) crew", as well as changing "Spaceflight Number." The rest is proper names, job titles, and acronyms, so I'm not sure if they shouldn't have capitals as shown in the example. Any specific ones you think should be changed?

Many thanks for the input. I'm tweaking the examples now. Munion (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a wet blanket, but looking at the example in your userspace, I am not fond of how it appears visually to the reader, and especially readers with accessibility issues, such as low vision. These readers run very low resolutions, and use large fonts. Already the very large infobox with lots of technical info that many readers will not understand is taking up a large portion of the right side, but then you add a big table below the TOC, and it looks like a jumble of cells. Keep in mind that these articles should be just that, articles, not lists. Lists use tables, but for articles, the goal is to have them in prose, sections, paragraphs. I realize that listing crew is not something that can be done in prose form, and I do think the idea of standardization is great, but I'm not convinced it should be done with a table.

And, I don't think citizenship should be listed, as I mention above, it doesn't affect their ability as astronauts, and is not relevant to the mission in the vast majority of the cases. In the cases where it was somewhat intentional, such as having a Canadian astronaut deliver Canadarm, or to have Nespoli deliver Harmony to represent Italy, these are basically items of trivia that are easily incorporated into article prose. Having a column for citizenship can be problematic, especially if someone is born in another country, but works for NASA, it would be emphasizing nationality and causing confusion to the average reader, who would wonder what country they were actually representing. Please understand the spirit in which I comment, it is not at all to make light of your work, as you've obviously done a lot of work in this, but to seek possible alternate solutions, that would be easier for readers, especially those not familiar with the subject, or those with accessibility issues. Ariel♥Gold 12:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Three projects doing the same thing

Implementation of the proposal has been completed successfully. --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 10:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Prep for shuttle launch- and mission-related updates

Please take a moment to look at (and improve) the actvities listed in the "noinclude" section of {{Launching/STS}}. Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 00:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

HSF Importance Criteria

Just to let everyone know, I've put together some draft criteria for rating articles according to importance, in preparation for having the project assess articles. You can find the first draft here Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Spaceflight/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance, and the related discussion on that page's talk page. Have a look and see what you think! Colds7ream (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mercury - Redstone

Resolved

 – (sdsds - talk) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article Mercury - Redstone seems to contain no useful content which is not already covered by other articles. It contains heavy POV and peacock terms, reads like an essay, and has an inappropriate and unbalanced tone. Therefore, I have proposed that it be deleted. If anyone objects, please remove the PROD tag, and I'll list it at AFD to enable further discussion. --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean "delete" in the sense of "make its article history unavailable"? That would seem rather drastic! Why not just replace the entire content with a redirect to e.g. Project Mercury and leave the article history in place? (sdsds - talk) 00:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean delete as in...well, delete. If you have a better way of doing things, then feel free to implement it. --GW_Simulations^{User Page | Talk} 08:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I rescued three images from deletion (as they were only used in this article) by adding them to other articles. I'm done, and will leave the PROD to expire. It has no incoming links from other articles. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with GW that this article serves no purpose, that the multitude of other (sourced) articles on the Mercury era do not provide, and agree that it is not written in an encyclopedic tone, nor is it neutral. Any information therein could easily be merged into the other articles, as shown by the merge tags. My suggestion: Copy any relevant, non-biased information down before the PROD expires, because once the article is deleted, it will not be there to look over and see what needs to be merged, if anything. Ariel♥Gold 05:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review Lunar orbit rendezvous

Please review Lunar orbit rendezvous, specifically the changes to the description of the LOR mission mode as used by Apollo. It retains the rather odd use of present tense -- is that sensible? Also, can someone confirm no missions other than Apollo have used this mode? (Were Luna sample returns all direct from lunar surface to Earth re-entry?) Other than Constellation missions, are there other planned missions (crewed or robotic) that include LOR? Followup at Talk:Lunar orbit rendezvous. Thanks. (sdsds - talk) 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template like {{tl:USS}} but for Shuttles

Resolved

 – GW_Simulations (talk · contribs) 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The template {{USS}} is used for formatting the names United States ships:

The template:	{{USS|Forrestal|CV-59}}
expands to:	USS Forrestal (CV-59)

Similarly, a template {{Shuttle}} could be used for formatting the names of Space Shuttle orbiters:

The template:	{{Shuttle|Atlantis}}
could for example expand to:	Space Shuttle Atlantis

Comments? (sdsds - talk) 07:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to go with that format, maybe we should have an option to put in the OV number, like in the ship template, i.e. {{Shuttle|Atlantis|OV-104}} would convert to Space Shuttle Atlantis (OV-104) - grand idea, though! Would definitely speed things up! Colds7ream (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Because the number of orbiters is small, the OV designations could even be inserted automatically by the template, based on the orbiter name. Personally I don't much like linking both the general Space Shuttle article and the orbiter-specific article, but that seems to be the most consistently used format, and I'm a big fan of consistency! Having a template makes consistency easier to achieve.... (sdsds - talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've drafted a template for you. It is located at User:GW Simulations/STS. Instructions on that page. Is this the sort of thing you had in mind? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes! This is indeed what I was trying to describe. I'm now eager to know: would a template like this appeal to other editors ... or would it seem too weird and largely go unused? The {{USS}} template does get used (in thousands of articles). But maybe the WP:SHIPS membership is more fanatic than we are about this kind of stuff? (sdsds - talk) 03:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be useful. I'm fed up of typing the full name. Maybe {{STS}} or {{OV}} would be the best location to keep it short. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 07:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly use it - it would save a huge amount of irritation every time I try to make the proper linking pattern, with all those long lines of Wikicode. Brilliant idea, and nice template GW! Colds7ream (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. One little note, don't substitute it, or this happens:

{{#ifeq:yes|yes|[[Space Shuttle]] }}{{#switch:{{uc:102}} 
|099 = [[Space Shuttle Challenger|''Challenger'']]{{#ifeq:no|yes| ([[Orbiter Vehicle Designation|OV-099]])}} 
|101 = [[Space Shuttle Enterprise|''Enterprise'']]{{#ifeq:no|yes| ([[Orbiter Vehicle Designation|OV-101]])}} 
|102 = [[Space Shuttle Columbia|''Columbia'']]{{#ifeq:no|yes| ([[Orbiter Vehicle Designation|OV-102]])}} 
|103 = [[Space Shuttle Discovery|''Discovery'']]{{#ifeq:no|yes| ([[Orbiter Vehicle Designation|OV-103]])}} 
|104 = [[Space Shuttle Atlantis|''Atlantis'']]{{#ifeq:no|yes| ([[Orbiter Vehicle Designation|OV-104]])}} 
|105 = [[Space Shuttle Endeavour|''Endeavour'']]{{#ifeq:no|yes| ([[Orbiter Vehicle Designation|OV-105]])}} 
|#default = [[Space Shuttle 102|''102'']]{{#ifeq:no|yes| ([[Orbiter Vehicle Designation|OV-{{#switch:{{uc:102}} 
|CHALLENGER = 099 
|ENTERPRISE = 101 
|COLUMBIA = 102 
|DISCOVERY = 103 
|ATLANTIS = 104 
|ENDEAVOUR = 105 
|#default = ???}}]])}}}}

It still displays properly, but it messes up the page content. Transclusion is much neater. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 17:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Has this been enough time for discussion? If so, I would like to start using {{OV}}, which is I think the best name suggested for it. (sdsds - talk) 18:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

STS-134??

Hi folks - just wondering if anyone knows why we seem to have invented an extra shuttle flight - STS-134. Is there any evidence for this, or the product of a hopeful mind? Colds7ream (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. I've prodded it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo of two shuttles at their pads

Resolved

 – User:thegreenj performed a very nice image edit: Image:STS31 carries Hubble to orbit edit.jpg, which is now used on various article pages. (sdsds - talk) 01:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there are at least two photos showing shuttle stacks at both pads 39a and 93b at the same time, but I can't find either of them. I would want to add one to several articles, e.g. STS-3xx. Also, one might make a good image for the {{Spaceport}} template. (sdsds - talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get some good ones of Atlantis and Endeavour when I head to KSC at the end of August for STS-125, if y'like... :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please! Those are the ones I really want -- and somehow magically have now, before STS-125 -- so they can be used to illustrate in the articles the scenario that's about to happen. It did happen in the pastas well, though. I just don't know which missions were at the pads simultaneously, so I can't think of a search term to find images of the event.

Try Image:S90-48650.jpg. I'm not sure about use in {{Spaceport}}, though. There is a full list of occurrences here --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure either. Follow up at Template talk:Spaceport#Finding a representational image. (sdsds - talk) 05:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not use the Discovery launch shot from STS-31? Colds7ream (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh cool! An action shot! Thanks for pointing this one out. (sdsds - talk) 05:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New project

There is a new task force at WP:AVIATION, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force. Its scope is broad enough to include biographies of astronauts, etc. Would you like to make this a joint task force? You could add a link to your banner and place it on the project page. Please come a take a look. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - It would be great to have a place to coordinate the work done by the Human spaceflight WikiProject with WikiProject Aviation. I suggest we create Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Biographies as a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force, and Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Biographies as a redirect to Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aerospace biography task force. (Once the talk page exists, we could e.g. discuss there whether any changes should be made to {{Infobox Astronaut}} and {{Astronaut-stub}}. (sdsds - talk) 01:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Sounds like a grand idea - I'm all for good collaboration! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed "Space Missions" subpage rename

I suggest we rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions/Space Missions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Space Missions or just Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Missions. Comments? (sdsds - talk) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me - we need to update that template anyway. Colds7ream (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

space food

air impingement oven or impingement oven - this critical piece of ISS equipment seems to be missing an article, since its culinary technology seems to have specifically been developed for the ISS 70.55.89.63 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool! (Or maybe that should be, "Hot!") Is there a good source to cite for this? (sdsds - talk) 22:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 323 articles are assigned to this project, of which 159, or 49.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be very handy indeed - a central hub where we can see what needs to be done would be extremely useful, if you can spare the time to create it for us! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The listing is available now, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Cleanup listing. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'm sure the list will prove very useful to us as we continue our sweep through articles! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Soyuz 2 rename

Soyuz 2 rocket has been proposed to be renamed to Soyuz-2. There is currently a space mission article at Soyuz 2, so it's a non-obvious selection. This is part of a renaming of rocket articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles/Poll 70.55.203.112 (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Crew sections

Since you guys have a rule that says the crew entry for Yuri Gagarin in Vostok 1 has to look like this:

• Yuri Gagarin (1), Pilot

Number in parentheses indicates number of spaceflights by each individual prior to and including this mission. could you please codify that on your project page, so people like me won't waste our time trying to make your articles look less retarded. Juzhong (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WPSpace banner

As you might have noticed, folks, I've added us to the main WPSpace banner - what do we think? Colds7ream (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurray! This is a great improvement. Thank-you! (sdsds - talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1

The featured list List of space shuttle missions has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed link, to direct to the archive, and struck out the "here" (red link) as the above is 2 months old. Ariel♥Gold 11:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:HSF Project

I have made some changes to the template that allow both the assessment, and importance ranking for articles, as well as placing those that are assessed into the proper categories. I have set the WP 1.0 bot to run the stats and logs, as well. This should get the Human spaceflight articles in a more centralized place, as well as make it easier to find those that need work, or are GA/FL/FA already. The bot runs every 3 days or so. In the meantime, all the pages with the banner need to be checked, to be sure it uses the proper syntax. See Template:HSF Project for instructions on using the proper syntax, and links to information on how to properly assess articles. Ariel♥Gold 11:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic work there Ariel - I've been putting the new template on various pages, but I do have a question - what extra framework will we need to create to enable us to set up a proper assessments system? Colds7ream (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is in place, I'm not the best coder out there, by far, I'd say maybe ask GW Simulations, he's a whiz with coding. I did create most of the categories, but some of them are still missing. Then it would simply be a matter of going through all the articles and adding the proper template, and the proper assessment to that template. Not a small job by any means, lol. Ariel♥Gold 12:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC

Just to notify everyone that there's a discussion going on at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC regarding the recent failed attempt to get the International Space Station article to FA status. Comments would be much appreciated on this matter. Colds7ream (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What Happened to Columbia

Folks might be interested to read this: CCSIR It's a report into what it was that actually happened to Columbia's crew on STS-107's reentry, published last night. Makes a fascinating read... Colds7ream (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Taskforce proposal

If anyone's interested, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Taskforce proposal as to how best to organise the project in future. Colds7ream (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Describing current status of operational reusable vehicles

Please join the discussion at Talk:Space Shuttle Discovery#Removed "Current status" section. (sdsds - talk) 02:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

With regards to this, I've signed up in an extremely unofficial capacity to keep us in contact. However, looking around various WikiProjects, it looks like many have a specific coordinator election & operation procedure - what do people think about setting up something like that here? We'd probably base it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators pattern? Colds7ream (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this project is really active enough to sustain such a structure. It might work across the whole of WPSpace though. --GW… 18:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Peer Reviews and A-Class criteria

I'd just like to gauge people's thoughts in response to the comments made by User:SandyGeorgia on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Space Station/archive2 - according to her, our peer review process is rubbish and needs drastic improvement; do we need to come up with some sort of set guidance like that used at WP:MILHIST, or just recruit some more members to assist? Colds7ream (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:15, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Is Template:HSF Project needed?

Can we deprecate Template:HSF Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? It is redundant to Template:WPSpace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which includes a section for this project. I can see no reason to tag articles twice, and since all HSF articles are also relevant to WPSpace, it seems logical to simply use that tag. --GW… 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, its that template that deals with the assessments which are categorised and listed on the project main page. Colds7ream (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but that can be done with WPSpace as well. See the tag used by WP:SPACEFLIGHT. --GW… 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Taufik Akbar

I found Taufik Akbar as a WP:PROD as an unsourced BLP earlier today. I could find references, but I find maybe editors of this project might be at a better position to source this article. Agathoclea (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I'll see what I can do! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

NASA procurement of Soyuz seats to ISS

Resolved

There is now a "solicitation"[2] issued by NASA JSC indicating the intent to purchase from Roscosmos "a minimum of 18 Soyuz seats up to a maximum of 24 seats beginning in the Spring of 2012" to provide ISS crew transportation. This fact is notable and well-sourced; can anyone find a reasonable article to which it may be added? (sdsds - talk) 06:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The 'visiting spacecraft' or 'expeditions' sections of International Space Station? Or possibly Political and financial aspects of the ISS? Colds7ream (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the topic is already touched upon at Political_and_financial_aspects_of_the_ISS#Future_of_the_ISS. That looks like a good place to add this. (sdsds - talk) 01:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Category-Class Human spaceflight articles

I'm unsure how to handle adding {{HSF Project}} to categories. Does only the top-most category need the banner? As a specific example, I added the template at Category talk:Human spaceflight programmes asserting the category to be within scope. Should the banner also be added for sub-categories like Category talk:Apollo program? Should the existing banner at Category talk:Shenzhou programme be removed because a super-category now implicitly puts it within scope? (sdsds - talk) 01:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

New article on the Mercury-Redstone booster

I've been writing a new article about the Mercury-Redstone booster which is still on a subpage of my user page at the moment. From the archives of this talk page, I know a previous Mercury-Redstone article had been deleted because it was junk. But I thought the Mercury-Redstone still deserved an article of its own, since it was substantially different from the original Redstone and the Jupiter-C, not to mention its historical importance as the U.S.'s first manned booster. The existing coverage of it in the Project Mercury page and in the Redstone pages seemed rather weak to me.

I'm hoping mine is a bit better, though I know there's still room for improvement. Apart from the infobox, which I tried to flesh out fairly well, it mostly focuses on how the Mercury-Redstone was changed from its predecessors to make it a suitable manned vehicle. It also mentions the little-known plans for a recovery system and lists the various Mercury-Redstone flights. It's heavily cited, but it depends almost entirely on a single source--the NASA report on the Mercury-Redstone project. Still, it's a very good source, especially for the technical changes; I'm not sure that a comparable one exists.

The article is short on images, though I've collected several potential candidates on my user page. Most of these are existing launch-related photos. I've added a few drawings ([3], [4], [5]) to Commons which came from the Mercury-Redstone project report; I was hoping to add them to the article, but because they are line drawings, I've found it tougher than I expected to find an acceptable layout in which the drawings are still legible.

Since the article is not yet public, I have not added any categories to it, nor is there a talk page. Also the title (with the "(rocket)" disambiguator) is open to change; I wasn't sure whether you might want the article to be separated from one on the subprogram, which has a link (currently just a redirect) in the Project Mercury template.

I hope you folks are still open to the possibility of a Mercury-Redstone article. Let me know if there are obvious things I've left out which should be in there, or if you have any other suggestions or complaints.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• My main objection to the old article was the fact that it was basically a historical essay on the US space programme. I have no objection to recreation, however I dislike the title "Mercury-Redstone (rocket)", as the Mercury spacecraft was not part of the rocket. I would prefer "Redstone MRLV", which was the official name of the rocket. I have no objection to a redirect at "Mercury-Redstone (rocket)", but I would object to having the article there. --GW/P… 09:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, although I have to agree with GW on the naming. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 09:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback and support. "Redstone MRLV" is not a form I'm familiar with myself. Sorry to raise a small bone of contention, but I'm having a hard time believing that it was ever the booster's official name. In a Google search I see that form used on some non-NASA websites, but not a single use on a NASA website or in a NASA document. I can't even find "MRLV", "MR-LV", or "MR LV" in NASA at all. So to me it looks more like a form invented after the fact by later commentators.

Throughout "The Mercury-Redstone Project", the booster itself is referred to as the "Mercury-Redstone", quite apart from the spacecraft it carried. It seems that the authors thought of "Mercury-Redstone" not simply in the sense of "a Mercury spacecraft combined with a Redstone booster", but also in the sense of "the Redstone version designed for Project Mercury". That would also explain the designation of the boosters (not just the flights) by MR-n.

By the way, removing "(rocket)" from the name doesn't bother me. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still not convinced. In my experience MR generally refers to the whole system (including spacecraft). MR refers to the mission numbers, not just the rocket. --GW/P… 11:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in most cases when you see "MR-n", it's referring to a mission. I'm just pointing out that the boosters were apparently designated in the same style. This shows up repeatedly in Chapter 8 of The Mercury-Redstone Project: "MR-1 was the combination of Booster MR-1 and Spacecraft 2", "Flight MR-1A was composed of the MR-3 launch vehicle and the No. 2 spacecraft", "Flight MR-2 was composed of the MR-2 launch vehicle and Capsule No. 5", and "MR-3 consisted of booster MR-7 and the Freedom 7 capsule", as well as the table on the first page of that chapter. You can check the document yourself if you like. This scheme also shows up on the tail end of the boosters themselves, as you can see in some launch and prelaunch photos (e.g. [6] showing booster "MR-7" for the Freedom 7 launch). Of course it was a poor choice to use an identical naming convention for missions and boosters, but that's what they did.

Sorry to keep going on about this. Would "Mercury-Redstone launch vehicle" or "Mercury-Redstone booster" be acceptable? --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's even worse, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Titles. "Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle" (note the capitalisation) would be just about acceptable though. --GW/P… 13:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that Titles link brings up a banner template without documentation. But I think I know what you meant. Anyway, whatever best fits your naming scheme is fine. I just wanted to try to keep the name as close as possible to the historical name without disturbing your standards. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, since there have been no further remarks for several days, I've moved the page to article space as Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle, with Mercury-Redstone (rocket) and Redstone MRLV as redirects to it. I've also added the article to the Mercury program category (the only one which seemed appropriate for it) and have created an empty talk page with banners for WP:Rocketry, WP:HSF, and WP:Space, in that order (since that seemed to be the most appropriate order in terms of relevance).

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, right now the article is nearly orphaned. I haven't yet changed any existing links to point to it, since I'd like to hear comments on what other people find appropriate, but it seems to me that any existing link which is intended to point people to further discussion of the Mercury-Redstone launch vehicle should point there. Such links currently point to Redstone (rocket) (a redirect to the military missile's article), to Redstone (rocket family), or to Project Mercury (that last one being on the Redstone rocket family page itself). --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, a week has passed; I've been busy on Commons uploading a bunch of NASA Mercury-Redstone images and making a gallery for the better ones, which I've linked into the article. I've now just gone through some Mercury-related articles and changed wikilinks related to the Mercury-Redstone booster to point to the new article. (I suppose it might be a good idea to also change the text of some of those links, but I left it unaltered for now.) --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! :-) I have to say, that gallery you've been building on Commons is the most beautiful one I've ever seen! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's really gratifying to hear. I never expected to receive such high praise for it. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Mercury-Redstone 1 article.

I've just finished rewriting the Mercury-Redstone 1 article and would appreciate feedback. The original article had a number of errors in what actually happened. The new article is rather heavily cited; I'm still new to citing, so please let me know if I've overdone it. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions

Just to remind everyone that there are unclosed discussions still awaiting input from members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Wikipedia 1.0/Importance and Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight/Taskforce proposal. Please weigh in with your opinions and ideas! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png

File:Space Barnstar Idea 1.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png

File:Barnstar-shooting-star.png has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ISSafterSTS119.jpg

File:ISSafterSTS119.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.