Template talk:Current spaceflight

Spaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the timeline of spaceflight working group.

Time Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template was considered for merging with Template:current on 3 March 2011. The result of the discussion was "do not merge".

I think placing a Space Shuttle image in "Current Spaceflight" template is a little bit biased towards shuttles. I propose to use more neutral image, for example that of ISS. Any thoughts?

The template currently reads, "This article documents a current [[spaceflight]]" which links to the spaceflight article. What do you think about changing it to link to Portal:Spaceflight? Sdsds 18:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has "Space stations articles should not use this template." been added without discussion? This has been a disputed issue, so I will revert the addition unless a good explanation can be provided? --GW_Simulations

Shouldn't we change that? For example, in its use on Dextre, it doesn't really fit, seeing that Dexter is not a space flight. Anyone have any ideas on how to fix this? Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To fix this, and to address the (perhaps sophomoric) assertion that the template isn't appropriate for landers and rovers, I suggest changing the wording from "spaceflight" to "spaceflight mission". Phoenix, for example, is a current spaceflight mission, even if no part of the spacecraft is currently "flying" in space. (sdsds - talk) 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's going to alienate some satellites, particularly commercial ones (the template is sometimes used on them when they are generating news - eg AMC-14). I would suggest a parser function such as {{#if:{{{mission|}}}|space mission|spaceflight}}, or even an open parameter, such as {{{type|spaceflight}}}. --GW_Simulations

Talk 08:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Additionally, we should include a template for rovers, possibly an icon in the top right corner. CompuHacker (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: While I agree with points two and four, if implemented non-exclusively, I think that points one and three are unworkable, and the overall set of criteria excludes several important missions. The only spacecraft that meets criteria one is

Talk 07:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Seconded
— Ω (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the guideline doesn't clearly say what it was intended to say then it should be changed, yes. Actually, when I removed the template, I didn't remove it because of the "routine" sentence, but because of first one: "(...) should only be used on highly notable missions which are expected to generate news." Should that part of the guideline be clarified too, and if so, how? --Conti|✉ 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to GOES-O specifically, that mission was (and still is, to some extent) all over the news... I guess that the sentence could be adjusted to state "fame" or "recognition" in place of "notable", since (in my opinion) the intent is not to address notability in the Wikipedia sense. It's intent is that the template shodl be used for articles which are (or will soon be) receiving coverage in the media.
— Ω (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, actually, I don't disagree with you. I consider GOES-O to be a borderline case, and the template could be there for the next few days. I wouldn't interpret the guidelines any differently if "fame" or "recognition" would be in the place of "notable", tho. The Mars Exploration Rover was highly famous, EPOXI (random example) is not. --Conti|✉ 17:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But when EPOXI flies past Hartley 2, it may generate news, so the template should be installed then. In the case of satellites that have just been launched, the early on-orbit operations may generate news, even if the mission is just a "routine" communications satellite, especially if there is some form of anomaly. --
  W… 17:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sure, I wouldn't mind that. But I would mind if the template should be on the article from the day of the launch date (The template was added on November 2008). Anyhow, I would prefer if the guidelines would say that it should be added when an article is "exepected" to generate news, not when it "may" generate news, as practically everything "may" generate news in the near or distant future. --Conti|✉ 18:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. What we need to say is that the template should be in place for some period of time while the mission is, or may be, in the "public consciousness". I'm fairly certain that is the basic point, we just need a good way to state that. I'm not a huge fan of message boxes myself, since I think that they tend to be overused and distracting, but the intent behind this one seems to be very clear to me. We just need to clarify the "rules" somewhat, is all.
— Ω (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← How about: "This template should only be used on missions which are expected to generate news in the immediate future, such as ongoing manned missions, or where details are expected to change rapidly, such as when an anomaly occurs or during the

W… 11:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

humm... that should work well. Approve. I can't think of any holes to punch through it, at least.
— Ω (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, too. There should probably also be the usual notice that the template is expected to be on an article for a few days at most, usually. --Conti|✉ 23:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --

W… 23:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm a bit confused about when this template is supposed to be used. It's currently used on all manned spaceflights, as far as I can see. Yet the template's guidelines say that "it should not usually be displayed for more than a few days, unless the mission is still generating news, or details are still rapidly changing". Soyuz TMA-20, for instance, did not receive a major edit in months, yet editors fight to keep the template there. Why? Either they are just plain wrong, or the guideline is incorrect and need to be fixed. Could anyone from the Wikiproject enlighten me? --Conti|✉ 17:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• They are wrong. The template should only be used when the spacecraft is actually doing something, or there is some significant change (eg. immediately after launch, during docking, orbital insertion around other planets, separation of components (eg. a coast stage or lander), landing, failure, etc.) --
  W… 08:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for the reply. Seems that others disagree, though, as I've just been reverted without even a comment. This is a tad bit frustrating, I have to say. --Conti|✉ 09:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Shuttle is one of the most iconic images of space flight, given it's retirement, it would seem reasonable to change the icon of the current spaceflight tag to a spacecraft in current operation. Usacfg (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this reply is 6 years late, but I agree. I think File:RocketSunIcon.svg would be more appropriate, since it's the icon used by WikiProject Spaceflight. If there are no objections, I'll change it over. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 years have since passed, so I'm wondering if anyone would be OK with the following mockups:

BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 05:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]