Jump to content

Talk:International Space Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WDGraham (talk | contribs) at 09:11, 1 February 2015 (→RfC: Should British English be the primary dialect for the ISS article?: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articleInternational Space Station is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 23, 2010.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 21, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
September 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 21, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 29, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 25, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 20, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 3, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
March 10, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 28, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
July 21, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 23, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
January 12, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
July 15, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 12, 2011Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

"Sea plankton"

As I've previously remarked over at Talk:Plankton, this story is WP:RECENT. It's also not yet mentioned on NASA's ISS webpages - which is odd for such a seemingly striking story. As such, I'm going to remove it from the lead for now (which isn't the place for it anyway), but it can be added again once more is known about the story officially (i.e. from NASA). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange statement

What does this sentence from the end of the second paragraph of the "Docking" section mean? "An automated approach could allow assembly of modules orbiting other worlds prior to crew arrival." I'm tempted to change it to say that an automated approach of modules already in orbit but I won't since I'm not sure that is accurate and/or not OR. 174.52.198.8 (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects of English and national connections to the subject

A single editor keeps making the claim that such topics have been discussed again and again. This same editor refers to how a (what I found to be probably non-existent) consensus was reached with regard to the dialect to be used. However, I just have to say that following a search, the earliest discussion about this I could find wasn't even a real consensus, and half the "arguments" were unjustified non-arguments (by general users in the discussion). Many were saying to use British English because it is an international subject, but British English does not equate superior or international English. Forcing editors to use a single dialect on something like this is bad in practice, and WDGraham keeps acting like there was no consensus to change the dialect, but there was no consensus to change to British English in the first place. This not only goes against WP:RETAIN but also goes against WP:TIES. Within reason, there should not be a single dialect which editors are restricted to use. At the very least, I think editors should at least show respect for national ties to United States and Canada by neglecting the {{British English}} template; {{Use British English}} is already used on the main page, and that is the tag that makes a difference. Using the British flag on an article such as this misrepresents the international nature of the project. If you hope to end this, I would suggest providing links to any places where a decision was made to formally establish British English as the variant to be used in the article, and not any of that "no consensus" nonsense. Dustin (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I won't just sit idle if nobody responds. Dustin (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should not make changes without establishing consensus, and lack of response is not de facto consensus. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said that so people would not just try to ignore me and hope that I wouldn't do anything. Dustin (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And the addition of that template was made without any real consensus anyway from what I can tell. Dustin (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say this, but if nobody even cares to defend his or her position, why should I refrain from making changes? If silence persists, I will make whatever change I deem to be necessary. Not just on this page but on a variety of pages, this sort of issue needs to be addressed, and the usage of national flags on English dialect templates should be reconsidered. This topic has very few connections with the flag of the United Kingdom, so why should the flag be used? That would be like using the flag of India for an subject almost purely associated with Britain. Dustin (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well since no-one has responded, here's my comment: I knew that this topic has been a PITA some years ago and maybe bringing up this topic will bring along explosive events ;) (I was never involved with that incident) , however I am actually siding with abolishing the British English guideline due to the reasons above (and yes I know that the main usage of British English in the first place was due to most of the parts being written by just the handful of users who use it, just like me), and also because the reason to put this template up in the first place - some editing wars a few years ago - has not come back for a long time already. Personally I don't see the point of keeping it here - well maybe that's because I really don't care about British vs American English and actually use both interchangeably. ;)
That said, I suggest that the user above not to remove that template until at least a few more user have commented on this and also discuss if there are any issues that could arise with removing it. I don't want this to kick open a box of explosives again and further damage this article that has already been demoted some time ago..... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that may not have been the best response, but it is probable that my attempt at discussion would have been ignored otherwise. If a dialect had to be used, it should probably be American English considered the greater degree of involvement than Canada or the United Kingdom, although Canada still has made many contributions so would be a better candidate than British English. Requiring British English under the current circumstances is unacceptable, however, considering the major lack of contributions. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom is only mentioned once in the entire article () and it isn't even in the main article text but is in a list under the European Space Agency in the International co-operation section. The United States and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are mentioned so many times that I cannot easily count them (over 200 times, though) and Canada and the Canadian Space Agency are mentioned what appears to be about 25 times. The United Kingdom is only mentioned once in this article. I know that the terms used in an article are not completely representative of the national ties of the subjects, but clearly, the UK has next to no national ties to this subject. Dustin (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is paying for the Space Station? The article should be written in USA English. GroveGuy (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to use consistency, then the American English dialect makes more sense than the variant used in the United Kingdom. Just consider the amount of involvement... there needs to be another discussion about this, but one where it isn't just the British editors saying "keep as is" and American editors saying "change it". I have provided my reasoning. Dustin (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the only comment I am going to make in this thread. As I have said before, there is nothing wrong with having a good-faith, civil, discussion that does not go round in circles for years. Penyulap's attitude made that impossible before, but he is gone now. That said, I do not believe that Dustin is capable of engaging in such a discussion, nor that he has the interests of this article in mind. He has already proven himself to be a disruptive editor by making threats if he does not get his own way[1][2] and he seems to have an agenda. This attitude, combined with his opening comments containing an attack against me despite no previous contact that I can recall and the same tired arguments about discussions that happened over five years ago, are the reason that I have avoided this discussion until now and until he begins to conduct himself civilly I do not believe a useful discussion can take place so I'm out. --W. D. Graham 10:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. You have acted in the past as though there were a consensus to change everything to British English when there was none. It is not fair that you think you and and your supporters can just keep your way by just ignoring me. With regard to personal attacks, that was not a personal attack: "WDGraham keeps acting like there was no consensus to change the dialect, but there was no consensus to change to British English in the first place."; there was never a consensus to adopt British English, but WDGraham in the past has acted as though this has been talked over and decided, when it has not. Dustin (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, this user was attacking me by calling my edits vandalism just because they go against his viewpoint. Dustin (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user has fabricated the idea that I am "attacking" him, but this is not true. These kinds of editors are willing to ignore me in the hopes that nothing changes; that is why I am removing the tag. I did not vandalize; "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I am not doing this to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and the very few actions I have taken by removing that tag have done nothing to harm the article. That is the very reason I chose that tag to remove. If I wanted to be disruptive, I would have converted the entire article to my preferred dialect, removed the tag on this talk page, and demanded that the edit notice be removed. I have done nothing of the sort. With that massive edit notice, it is pretty much useless here anyway. This user is making me out to be hostile, but no. I am willing to discuss. The problem is what to do when many people either just ignore the discussion or don't notice. I apologize if I appeared that way, but that is a really bad interpretation of my intent. Getting "this user is a vandal" (with his "rvv" edit) for two twenty-byte edits which did nothing to harm the article is a failure on this user's part to assume good faith. This is not a personal attack; it is a defense and the truth. Please understand. Dustin (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be an RfC? After searching for alternatives, that seems to be the only viable way of drawing attention to the issue at hand. Dustin (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ref?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/science/space/international-space-station-ammonia-leak.html Bananasoldier (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should British English be the primary dialect for the ISS article?

Should the primary dialect this article uses be British English? Dustin (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now after going about things in the wrong way, I have decided to try out an RfC as a way of drawing attention to the issue at hand. In the past, this issue has been discussed, but the last major discussion was nearly six years ago, you I think this issue should be reviewed. The United Kingdom has lesser national ties to the subject while the United States and Canada have greater national ties to the subject, and the great majority of funding among English speaking countries was provided by the United States, so I think that either no dialect should be preferred or one of the North American dialects should be used. That's just my say; let's hear your own. Dustin (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anyone has ever tried to argue that the United Kingdom has greater national ties to the article than any other country; it doesn't. It is a massive international project with contributions from many countries, including the US, Canada, ESA (for whose articles we typically use British English), and to a small extent the UK itself through ESA. Because of the large number of participants, several of them English-speaking, it has been held in the past that MOS:TIES does not apply in this case (or that ties are not sufficiently strong to justify changing from the current version). Therefore, because the article needs to be consistent, MOS:RETAIN is invoked - the article started out in British English so this is retained. I don't think anything has changed sufficiently since the 2009 discussion to warrant changing this attitude so I think MOS:RETAIN should continue to be applied. --W. D. Graham 22:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The International Space Station is, of course, and international project. However, for the purposes of consistency, the article must use a consistent form of English. Now, look at the English-speaking countries which have participated in project. We have Canada, the United Kingdom (participating through the European Space Agency), and the United States. The vast majority of the funding has come from the United States (including English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries), followed by Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada. Even assuming that 100% of the money contributed by Europe comes from the United Kingdom (which it does not), that still leaves the United States spending over ten times as much as the United Kingdom. The UK has largely withdrawn much of its support for the ISS, so it just does not make sense to use British English. This is an international endeavor but this is the English language Wikipedia; as a result, we must look at the English-speaking participants. That takes us back to CA, the UK, and the US. The United States does have national ties to the International Space Station which go well beyond all other countries, so if a dialect should be used, it should logically be American English the way I see it. MOS:TIES - Also with regard to what dialect the article started with, the most I can find out is that the first apparent dialect used could be British English because of the usage of Endeavour which is argued to be British English; however, that is not British English as that is a proper noun, meaning that even in American English, it is still Endeavour with a "u". I do not know what the first used dialect was, but when taking the strong national ties into question (the US has contributed over half of the funds), the United States clearly has put much more into this project than the UK. Dustin (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't choose how we format our articles based only on financial investment. Trying to argue that the dialect should be changed because Britain is less involved in the programme than other English-speaking countries is a straw man - nobody is saying that it is British, just that the article currently uses that spelling and the earlier discussion found that ties to other countries were not strong enough to justify changing. It doesn't really matter what dialect the article was in when it was started because rightly or wrongly the current usage is established and that is what would be retained. For the record if you had read the original discussion you would be aware that this was the first edit which introduced a variation in English other than Endeavour. --W. D. Graham 09:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Space_Station&oldid=645114930"