Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --rogerd 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikifying
Hi. I noticed you keep add various links about to the same article in Indianapolis 500. It really isn't necessary to have links to Jim Clark, or Al Unser, or Bill Vukovich, or Roger Penske more than once in the same page. Some of these had three or four links in the Indy page, which I've removed. I've also removed all those flags from the Indy article. The flags were designed for use in tables, not in the middle of text. --Pc13 15:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"==" is used for create headers in a page. They're more like different chapters in the same page. I agree, the Indy 500 article is becoming increasingly bulky. When I originally expanded the article I tried to avoid being specific about years and drivers, and preferred to point out defining events in the history of the Indy 500. Then other people started adding trivia and lists. Some of these have been spun into their own pages, and right now I believe the same should happen to the "Year by year" section. It would probably be good to create Indianapolis 500 history, and transfer the "Year by year" to it. Flags in the middle of the text are not a good idea, visually wise. Besides, not all flags are instantly recognizable. If people want to know the drivers' nationality, they can simply click on the link, it's mentioned in their articles. --Pc13 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Star Tiger source
Hello! I noticed you added a section on the Star Tiger to Bermuda Triangle. However, you didn't add any additional sources. Could you please somehow indicate what sources you used? Thanks! --AySz88^-^ 16:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
co-winner
Hi. I noticed that you recorded Corum as a "co-winner". I'm not sure that this is necessary. Members of a team are usually all referred to as winners, while people who tie are usually co-winners. For example, Ben Roethlisberger is a winner of Super Bowl XL, as is Jerrome Bettis, but Peyton Manning and Steve McNair are co-winners of the 2003 NFL MVP award. --
I agree with you, but I've known necessity in the modern racing world to explain the nature of the 500, wherein the car is winning entry, rather than, necessarily, the driver. If one starts and the other finishes the race, they would be co-winners...instead of just one or the other, and then edits coming in due to people thinking they know the "true winner, instead of this being incorrect," etc. A lot of that could be possible on wikipedia, at least so far as I've seen on several pages. --Chr.K. 06:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That context helps some, thanks. I thought that I had addressed it in the body of the article (if that stub I created can be called a body), but I can see how your note makes it more clear than I had done. To be consistent, do you want to make any similar changes to
Hey, I wanted to discuss your adding of the Hope Diamond to the project. I was working on a list of "what isn't under the scope of the project", and curses were one of the things I was planning on adding. While I understand that the circumstances of a curse could be considered paranormal, the usage of the word is so wide as to suggest the inclusion of some stuff that more clearly doesn't seem like our department, like the Curse of the Billy Goat or the Curse of the Bambino. What do you think? --InShaneee 16:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discount the phenomina of curses at all; I'm simply saying that the modern usage has become synonimous with Bad Luck, and thus it can make objectively deciding when a curse is truly paranormal extremely difficult. Was the Curse of the Bambino a curse? If not, how do we explain our criteria for inclusion in the project? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the topic of curses has little coverage on wikipedia (perhaps due to a lack of recognition), hence why I think we should hesitate before trying to include them. --InShaneee 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And also, there's the issue of whether it would be more suited to our sister project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Occult, instead. --InShaneee 18:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That still brings us to the original problem of articles such as Curse of the Bambino. And while I considered bringing this to the Project, that smacks of original research (having us, the editors, decide which curses are 'real'). Curse itself sounds like a good addition, though, barring my second comment above. While I'm thinking about it, too, love the Eerie, Indiana quote on your userpage. :) --InShaneee 18:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see it as being that simple. For example, if you look at
this section, people did treat the Curse of the Bambino as a real curse, and that is verifiable. So here, we're getting down into some real dirty, ugly semantics. Do you see what I'm getting at? --InShaneee 21:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess. Curse doesn't go so far as to detail effects/scope. --InShaneee 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, thanks for helping me finish classing the unassessed Paranormal articles. I was beginning to think I'd have to do all 465 myself! :) --InShaneee 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the first time I've got that complaint, either. I've kind of been ignoring them for the most part, simply because I figure that once we get a large number of members, we'll want to create some subProjects, and they very first one on the list will be WikiProject Cryptozoology. But until there's enough people to handle that, it's really best if we be the hub for it. --InShaneee 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is simply a practical one. While WikiProject Parapsychology seems like a logical division, we wouldn't have enough editors to get it started. Even WP:PARA right now is very much an infant project (compare to the 400+ member
WP:MILHIST). A Wikiproject needs a large amount of support to be founded and continue functioning, and right now, we've barely got that. I'm sure it will exist in the future (as a matter of fact, as soon as this business of the new icon gets cleared up, I'm going on a canvassing run for new members), but until then, it's really best to keep the topics where the interest is. When we start getting large, this should be brought up again, although even then, I'm going to suggest that perhaps a Taskforce structure like in WP:MILHIST might be more prudent. --InShaneee 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said, without a large body of support, WikiProjects by logical division will simply fail. Best to keep subjects together in a large lump, then split off as subcats become sustainable. For example, WP:PARA was essentially inactive when I found it. It's logical structure was completely correct, but it had little to no editorial support. --InShaneee 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. All of the complaints I've recieved have been placated once it was pointed out that we aren't claiming these things as paranormal, we're simply taking care of Cryptozoology articles as part of our project's scope. Besides, better to have an imperfect name than several largely unsupported projects. --InShaneee 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I created a Wiki Category
I created a new Wiki Category: "Category:Bermuda Triangle". I would appreciate it if you looked it over and would help me to expand it. Thank you. ProfessorPaul 03:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indy pole sitters
Keeping the kmh should be fine...I hadn't gotten very far, anyway...a quick look at the "history" should recover the old values. Doctorindy 20:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This edit: [1] is OK. Thank you for finding nice solution. Przepla 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Barnstar
The Original Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your excellent contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal and for your work towards assessing unrated articles within the project. It's that kind of "plugging along" getting the little things done type of work that help move articles onwards and upwards in quality. THANKS! Lisapollison 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POGO 22, et al
I haven't been able to get anything more than the newspapers in question, and even then this is limited to old copies of the Washington Post, New York Times, and Atlanta Constitution. I have not been able to get a copy of the report from the Air Force Historical Society (I believe they would supply it) as of yet. It does get frustrating when dealing with a governmental entity. Carajou 14:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From seeing one of your userboxes, which states that you are interested in the
Salem Witch Trials, you may want to join a new task force another Wikipedian, Cocoaguy, and I created which is devoted to the Trials: Salem Witch Trials task force
I'm inviting you to offer your perspective on the EVP article and to join us in making that article one of the 'good articles' here at Wikipedia. Right now we are working on the lead or opening. My thoughts are to bring consensus for the article top - down (starting with the opening as that sumarizes the article and topic). I'm interested in any editors from ProjectParanormal who would like to join in as a group effort to improve this article. Your involvement with this group; I recently found due to EVP and joined; would help in organizing members towards the positive goal of improving this article. The article needs some help especially with structure - grammar - references - and overall neutrality. --Northmeister 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the article belongs in WP:AOWR? Lots of types of vehicles raced on board tracks. I have not reverted your adding the article to the WikiProject, but I request that you explain the genre's relevance to American Open Wheel racing on the article's talk page. Royalbroil 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits to the board track racing make it clear why it should be part of WP:AOWR. I worked on the article a few days ago. I'm about ready to start an article on Eddie Hasha in my sandbox. His death was very influential in the decline of board tracks. Please watch for any references to him in your research. I have two solid sources right now: the front page article about the accident in the New York Times, and one of the references in the Board track racing article. I hope to make a Did You Know article on Hasha. Royalbroil 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
It seems this template isn't actually transcluded anywhere. From what I can tell, it's just a key or legend. Would you have any objection to moving it to a subpage of the American Open Wheel Racing WikiProject? Seems more appropriate to have it the Wikipedia: namespace rather than the Template: namespace if it isn't going to be used as a template. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chr.K. I notice you've updated a couple of links to the American Open Wheel results key template. Can I ask you to hold off doing any more for the moment? I think the existing links are correct and that the template shouldn't have been moved from the Template space into the WikiProject space. I'll raise the issue for discussion at WP:AOWR. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I didn't realise it had already been discussed at WP:AOWR. In that case, feel free to continue updating the links. Cheers. DH85868993 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pain, but we are currently rewriting the page due to it being listed for demotion and I am not sure if the edits you have made are correct.
The section you edited was trying to show that there were only 2 drivers who have won those particular 4 championships, so can you please clarify for me if these are the same championships :-
...
USAC
), ...
and
IndyCar
, ... it sort of imples that there is another racing series that is non-USAC, and not being an avid watcher of Indycar (except when Fittipaldi was around) I am not sure if this is an important difference in the text.
thanks for your time---Chaosdruid (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Andretti
Hi
Thanks for your reply, I found it very informative and interesting !
It is strange how these things go, I wonder if that will be the same fate for F1 v A1. I asked as the references would have to be changed if we were to link it to any of the results pages and I needed to ensure that any searches I or others did would definitely get the right section for the reference. I find it bizarre that after 30 years there should still be argument going on at that sort of level, but I suppose with the Andretti family spanning so many generations of US racing history it would affect them more than others. Do you think there is a need to include some or any of your wonderful prose in the article? I am sure that perhaps some should be included as he was one of the drivers in the third season of CART racing and, at the time, it must have been complicated for him and his son in 1989 with his earlier career in the USAC.
Anyway, thanks for the information ! Should we quote USAC alongside the early victoreis and CART for the later ones ?
Don't worry about it, as long as we get it right it doesn't matter how long it takes really. The article got through the GAR review, and passed - Woohoo ! so no rush.
Thanks for replying and hope to read it soon on the page
It looks like you did lots of work improving the article to GA standards. So you know, it's needs minimal improvement to retain GA status. Are you planning to work on it, or should I? Royalbroil 20:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Winners list
Over at List of American Championship Car winners, I reverted your edit (adding the placements 1,2,3,4..) because when I hit the sortkeys at the top, the table absolutely exploded. A sortable table won't work with shared cels. It looked like a lot of work, and I hated to do it, but it just had to be done. Doctorindy (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Indycar season table
He WOULD have been there, but because of the trial he -Did Not Participate-.) - Well surely then Rpl would be the correct nomenclature? He would have been there, but he was replaced. --Falcadore (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Delivered by
WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply
]
WikiProject activity
Hello there! As part of an experiment to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the
list of members
of WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance.
Delivered by
WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight at 17:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply
]
WikiProject Spaceflight reboot
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a
WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below.
Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects
The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group.
A number of issues are still under discussion:
Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process
Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles
Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes
Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones
A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal
six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{
is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December,
Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03
. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw
Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6
spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A
Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L
be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term
HTHL
do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on
Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir
promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz
mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(
Proton rocket
upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first
Briz-KM
, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A
NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir
. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second
Explorer-1 [PRIME]
. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a
External Tank
.
At some point in February, a
Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre
towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
. A user requested feedback on major changes which had been made to the article, however at the time of writing no responses have been offered.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of
Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL
. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move
Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures was nominated for Good Article reassessment due to concerns over the article's quality. Doubts were also expressed over the thoroughness of the original review conducted upon its nomination for GA status. It was also suggested that the article's title may not be the most common name for the experiment, and that it might be necessary to move the page. Concerns were also raised regarding whether Space Interferometry Mission was up-to-date, however these are being addressed. Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet
looks likely to be promoted to GA status.
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
“
Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (
cosmonaut who on 12 April 1961 became the first human to journey into outer space
.
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into
Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky
.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An
WP:MILHIST
, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the
Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2
satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched
Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos
designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the
. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir
launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article
Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program
is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that
Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88
has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed:
Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks
is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the
User:GW Simulations
has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at
WT:SPACEFLIGHT
. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the
Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks
.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the
) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany
the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indianapolis 500 records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harry Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberian civil war (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1919 Indianapolis 500, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Dawson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The
Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Chr.K.. Voting in the
2018 Arbitration Committee elections
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You are invited to join us at IUPUI University Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by IUPUI University Library, and supported by the Central Indiana Community Foundation—where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:
You are invited to join us at Ruth Lilly Law Library for an edit-a-thon on Food Deserts & Food Policy hosted by Ruth Lilly Law Library and United States National Agricultural Library. Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on food deserts, nutrition, and related local and federal food policy.
Thursday, July 28th from 11am-4pm, in Room 235G, Inlow Hall, 530 West New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202.
Visit the Wikipedia/Meetup page or Eventbrite to sign up and learn more.
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Indiana-area events by removing your name from this list. Sent on 08:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC).)
You're invited! Environmental Justice editathons in Indianapolis & Bloomington
Bloomington
Upcoming events around Indiana - Nov. 1: Environmental Justice editathons 2 locations: Indianapolis & Bloomington (and virtual option)
IUPUI
You are invited to join us for a multi-site editathon organized by
Herman B Wells Library
at IU Bloomington (with virtual option). Together, both experienced and new Wikipedia editors, with faculty subject matter experts, will collaboratively improve articles on environmental justice in Indiana and globally. Join us at either location or virtually!
Registration is now open for WikiConference North America 2022 (Nov. 11–13) held jointly with Mapping USA! If you would like to experience this virtual event in-person, you are welcome to join our meetup in Indianapolis! We will be meeting at IUPUI University Library for the weekend, with AV set up for conference streaming and presenting (for those who've submitted proposals).
Anyone is welcome to join, we will have some light refreshments and are planning evening activities. Feel free to join us for an activity, a day, or the whole weekend. Please let us know you are coming via the meetup page and please register for the conference. We will share more about in-person activities on the meetup page as they are finalized.
It's been an eventful state legislative session in Indiana, and local elections took place this week, so we have lots to cover! You are invited to The AMP at 16 Tech in Indianapolis for a Politics & Government editathon to improve write articles about local political and government topics of interest and improve information about local officials, candidates, elections, and legislation. Come join us at this fun venue, with free parking and refreshments provided!
You are invited to join us at Spades Park Branch Library for a Wiki Loves Pride editathon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on LGBTQ+ topics, individuals, organizations, and legislation in Indiana.
We are partnering with the Indiana State Fair to offer FREE tickets to the fair for Wikipedians! We will be meeting on July 30th at 10am to pass out tickets and have a quick info session before we attend the fair (feel free to branch off and share your accomplishments on the Meetup page later!) Detailed instructions on how the day will go is available on the Meetup page! We hope you'll join us to edit about things related to fair (historic buildings, foods, animals, activities, and the fair itself).
All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us!
Herron School of Art & Design for an Under-represented Artists of Indiana Edit-a-thon—hosted by the Wikimedians of Indiana User Group
with support from the Central Indiana Community Foundation. Together, new and experienced Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on under-represented Indiana based artists and art/artist organizations and groups in Indiana today, and historically.
When: Wednesday October 11, 2023 11:30 am - 2:00 pm Eastern
Where: Herron Art Library in Herron School of Art & Design 735 W. New York St. Indianapolis, IN 46202
Parking: Please park in lot 88 - the visitor parking area in the garage across the surface lot from Herron. We will have parking vouchers available.
What to bring: Your preferred editing device and necessary charging cables, and any material you may want to reference. Lunch and refreshments will be provided.
All levels of experience are welcome! Please RSVP so we know who is coming. We hope you'll join us!
