Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space

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} 09:42, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Artificial satellites currently orbiting Sun has been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 15 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this article is currently near the top of the wp:featured articles/Cleanup listing as it is in 5 maintenace categories: Articles needing additional references (Mar 2009), Articles to be expanded (Jan 2009), Articles with unsourced statements (Feb 2008, Aug 2008, Mar 2009), thanks Tom B (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed that WPRocketry move out of the WPSpace group of projects. Since the reorganisation it has been operating significantly outside of the scope of the rest of WPSpace, so I feel it would be better off as an independent, but associated project. I've started discussion on the WPRocketry talk page. --GW… 22:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• This has now been done. --GW… 09:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Mer-b-final-launch.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I created this infobox for the articles about planetary magnetospheres (currently used in two articles). Comments and suggestions are appreciated. Ruslik (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this article for peer review. You can leave your comments here. Ruslik (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I was told to approach your wiki project in connection with some attempts to get a podcast for Wiki Campus Radio developed, topic being the Moon Landings..

Any suggestions on what 'free' content could be included?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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 has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Can I please request that the newly-assembled Portal:Human spaceflight be included in the Space portals template? Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Sun for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have two problems / proposals for these lists. First, it is rather confusing that e.g. the "List of minor planets: 10001–11000" consists of ten subpages named "List of asteroids/10001–10100" and so on. Both should be at "minor planets" or at "asteroids" for consistency, in my opinion. Second: these subpages should not exist in this form. According to Wikipedia:Subpages, subpages are not allowed in the mainspace, and are technically disabled (note how the talk page Talk:List of asteroids/10001–10100 has a small automatic hatnote pointing to Talk:List of minor planets, while the main page doesn't: this is because subpages in Talk are allowed).

There are different solutions to this: the subpages can be reintegrated in the main page (my preferred solution): templates or transcluded content should in general only be used when it is transcluded on different pages, not when it is only used on one page (size issues are not really relevant, to load the page before you can edit it, you have to get all the info anyway, so the smaller size you get when editing is not really a benefit). If this is not wanted, the pages have to be moved, e.g. List of asteroids/10001–10100 should become List of asteroids: 10001–10100 or (even better) List of minor planets: 10001–10100. Perhaps other solutions are possible, these are the most obvious ones. Fram (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to naming, I would prefer parenthesised disambiguation, and the "minor planets" title (eg List of minor planets (10001-10100), but anything would be better than the current system, which is a blatant violation of WP:NC. --GW… 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking a bit more on this, and I really don't see any reason to keep separate pages if they are only being transcluded on a bigger page. It doesn't help loading (same amoibt of data needs to be loaded), reading, or editing (you get section buttons anyway, which are easier to edit than the current edit buttons, and you don't get the strange text (markup, transclusions, ...) an uninformed editor gets when he wants to edit the whole page). I don't see any advantages of keeping the subpages as separate pages, even if they are no longer technically subpages. Furthermore, they appear on "random pages" but are not really articles, lacking all introduction or context. So barring further remarks and discussion, I'll probably just merge the pages to the "mother" page and delete the subpages afterwards. I'll wait a week or so to give everyone the chance to respond. Fram (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The List(s) of asteroids are all being migrated to List(s) of minor planets, so naming will be consistent. As for breaking up the 1000-minor planet pages, this was done because of their length. The editor complains (rightly) that they are way beyond the 32 Kib "limit". Even if this were not a problem, using 100-minor planet pages yields the substantial benefit of lowering the size of the history trail, as individual minor planet edits are made (as they are named in drips and drabs by the IAU/MPC). The situation is a little different for the Meanings of minor planet names pages, where 100-minor planet subpages are overkill in the rather sparse high-denomination regions. There is a discussion about this here. Urhixidur (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming is consistent but wrong, since they still are subpages, which are forbidden in the main namespace. Fram (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus, you can just edit a section, this gives exactly the same result (no "editor window" complaints) with none of the hassle of transclusion of forbidden subpages. And what is the problem with a large history trail? Now you have a large history spread, where the history of one page is divided over ten subpages, each with a history with only 5 or 6 persons (like in List of asteroids/150101–150200), or seven for the lower numbers (List of asteroids/20001–20100). I'll soon start moving these out of the subpages and into the main pages, like they should be. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In the article Physics of the Impossible a single editor removed material that I believe, very much enhanced this article. The other editor’s view is that the removed material was off topic. My view is that it is very much on topic.

The current article is here: (current)

The version which I restored is at my sub page here: (restored)

Everything that was removed is related to the book. This is because, as the author writes: “The material in this book ranges over many fields and disciplines, as well as the work of many outstanding scientists.” There is a two and one half page list of the individuals, “who have graciously given their time for lengthy interviews, consultations, and interesting, stimulating conversations.” Most on this list happen to be scientists. I listed only the first 22 individuals and these are scientists. In addition, I linked their names to their biography on Wikipedia. I also listed each scientist’s fields of specialties. Many on the list in the article have more than one field of specialty (view here), and hence this reflects the breadth of knowledge contained in this book. If you look at this section in the restored article you will see what I mean.

In addition, before this material was removed by the one editor, the article was much more interactive. It was also more in line with the intent of Wikipedia that that the readers (as well as the editors) have a satisfying experience with Wikipedia. One aspect of this more satisfying experience is being able to access the knowledge that is available at Wikipedia on the sciences, and, perhaps, the mathematics. So, I linked not only the names on the list, but also many of their scientific disciplines to the respective Wikipedia article. Accessing this knowledge supports the following WikiProjects and their respective portals: (there are more I am sure)

• WikiProject Astronomy
• WikiProject Books
• WikiProject Physics
• WikiProject Space
• WikiProject History of Science
• WikiProject Science
• WikiProject Mathematics
• WikiProject Technology
• WikiProject Computing
• WikiProject Computer Science
• WikiProject Engineering

Also, there were graphics that were removed which support the article and the concepts in the book. I believe these should be restored as well. These are on the restored article page, at my sub page. The captions of the graphics show that the book is grounded in real science. If you scroll through the restored article you will see the variety of graphics. I believe these enhance the article aesthetically, as well as help to give a clearer picture of the concepts contained in the book and the article.

Lastly, there were external links that were removed which reflect the concepts in the book. These external links were removed as though they were not relevant. For example, I will list some of the external links, and then the page number in the book, to which each link is related:

• Solar sails: pp. 152, 158 - 159, 166, 172…
• Space elevators: pp. 165 – 169
• Black holes: 156, 232, 235 – 236…
• Travel at the speed of light: 159 – 161, 163 – 165, 169 – 170…

Unfortunately the external links that were removed are going to have to be restored one at a time, because they cannot be cut and pasted back from the revision history without some distortion. I think these external links should also, be restored to the article.

I think the bottom line is, let common sense decide. Even Wikipedia guidelines say that they are just guidelines, not letter of the law.

I would appreciate a consensus on whether or not to keep the removed material. Please place your comments here: Consensus please. This is on the talk page of Physics of the Impossible.

Thanks for your time Ti-30X (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I direct this projects attention to the article Space science as it seems an important topic and the article really needs work. -- œ^™ 08:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've created a series of typing aid templates today in order to represent the Lagrangian points:

• {{L1}}
• {{L2}}
• {{L3}}
• {{L4}}
• {{L5}}

Since the template is also a link to the Lagrangian point page, replacing existing text in order to use the template has created a possible issue. There are many instances where the text is now {{L2}} [[Lagrangian point]]. So, I wanted to gather some opinion on whether or not this is Over-linking. I was considering going back and delinking Lagrangian point, so that they would all look like {{L2}} Lagrangian point, but the point templates are fairly small so I'm uncertain about what would be best. For a "live" example of this, take a look at 2005 TO74 (the last sentence).

This discussion is also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Over-linking?
— V = I * R (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please give D.martorelli (talk · contribs) some pointers in the right directions. See xyr creations such as Luigi Gussalli and Center for Studies and Research in Aeronautical Medicine (AfD discussion) and xyr edits such as this one to Italian Space Agency, which would seem better off in an article about the history of Italian astronautics. Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A WP:RM requested move has been filed to rename Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Would this move actually be controversial in any way? If no one objects here or on the talk page, I could easily just move the page tomorrow.
— V = I * R (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed NASA for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the gruntwork is done now, and the article could use a fresh set of eyes to copy edit it, add more materiel, and offer suggestions and feedback. If you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Good Article Review Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Skyramp (space launch system based on ground based accelerator) is up for deletion at AfD. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Kept, I've sent it to RM in an attempt to make it more general. --GW… 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I've posted a proposal at Talk:List of Constellation missions, about possibly merging all the "Orion xx" articles back into that page. Any thoughts would be appreciated; please leave comments there. Shimgray | talk | 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have completed a routine report on black project pages, many of which concern recon satellites and are classified as part of this project. As such, any members of this project are invited to comment on the report, which is located at here. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Azur is a tiny stub. Please can someone template it as such, and adopt it into the relevant project. It's about Germany's first scientific satellite and I can't find much information about it. my username is 86.136.34.91 (talk) (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 11:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A discussion regarding date formatting has been started at Talk:Ares I#Date formatting test
— V = I * R (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has a moment to spare, I would deeply appreciate it if you could come lend a hand with Ares I. It's recently received a Peer Review, which can be found at Talk:Ares I/Comments. Any and all contributions would be welcome, no matter how small or large. Even if you come and change one comma to a period, that would be useful. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

User:RadioFan has prodded for deletion a whole bunch of space societies, space advocacy groups, meteor tracking societies, and amateur astronomy societies for deletion. See WP:PRODSUM and entries from before this date. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed a continuing effort over a number of months by (it seems) one person, using different unregistered addresses, to amend the pages of the 24 people who flew to the Moon during the Apollo program. They believe that they should be discussed as "sixth man," "seventh man," etc., which in my opinion adds unneeded ambiguity to the pages (no women have yet flown to the moon, but using "men" leaves that option open). Their unregistered nature and changing address has not allowed me to discuss, and changing back their edits has resulted in mild abuse from them. Their point of view seems to be that "men" better reflects the 1960s era, regardless of whether it makes a 21st-century web page less accurate.

An editor suggested to me: "Have you tried bringing the topic up at WT:SPACE? If you were, and if the phrasing you have suggested gains consensus, then whenever our Mississippi State University friend starts reverting things back to his or her own preferred version, then the IP could be warned and blocked as necessary for POV pushing." I am therefore doing so - although their changing address makes me wonder if blocking would be affected. Is there a way to semi-protect the affected pages from non-established users? Looking forward to any thoughts / assistance on this matter. Thank you. SpaceHistory101 (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the same IPs have been POV vandalizing Planned Parenthood articles at exactly the same time as their edits to the astronaut's articles, I think they've got an agenda that does not include improving Wikipedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

They are now doing it with a different IP, 130.18.233.194, also registered to Mississippi State University. Also done in the past as 99.1.124.197, same MO, and as "Oneforanother" - when they also vandalized the Planned Parenthood page. I second the request to protect all 24 of these pages from this vandalism. They don't appear to want to talk about it, only to continue to log in with different IPs from the same facility. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the timestamps, you will notice that the IP's final edit [1] was on the 19th, while my suggestion [2] to SpaceHistory101 about bringing the discussion here was on the 20th. — Kralizec! (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Back at it again with another IP, I'm getting close to asking a Wikipedia:CheckUser to impose a rangeblock on the university. -MBK₀₀₄ 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that, as looking back further through the pages of many of the 24 astronauts, they have been doing this for some time, and do not seem to wish to reach consensus. Their same wording and MO was also used from another IP address in the recent past ( 131.22.200.55 ), much of which was tagged as vandalism. Plus, looking at the Planned Parenthood page mentioned above, it seems their agenda is not to improve Wikipedia. But perhaps they will come to this page and discuss the issues? Edgeshappy12 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not more concise, 24 people does not show the change in times. 24 people is just a gender neutral way of saying it and saying that it encompasses everyone is just a mask to cover your own agenda. 24 men, the first humans to ever do so is a pure and better way of saying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.138 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject of these articles is not the "change in times", and these edits are irrelevant to the articles. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of compromise statement needs to be reached. Your gender neutral statement has to reflect history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.138 (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It already does reflect the history relevant to the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Then prepare for total war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.232.189 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 August 2009

Wikipedia works at its best when people with divergent views work together to build a common consensus. We would welcome your assistance to work with us in order to build a better encyclopedia. However making threats like a nine year old is not going to benefit anyone. — Kralizec! (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Then prepare for total war" ? Good grief. Time to protect these 24 pages, I think. Edgeshappy12 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The protection policy does not allow for pre-emptive page protections. What is warranted is a healthy usage of WP:RBI paired with WP:DENY. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of setting up a project newsletter to try and boost activity within the project. Does anyone have any comments/suggestions/objections regarding this proposal? --GW… 20:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Chandrayaan-1 has been in the news (radio contact lost, mission declared over). Our article will probably be getting hits; it could use some copyediting and wikifying. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)