User talk:Nbound/Defunct/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Nbound/Defunct/Archive 1, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Your sun image on the Solar System footer template has no license. Since you uploaded it and created it, you now have to license it. 1ne 23:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem Resolved: Released to public domain Nbound 01:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am a current WinXP user, looking to upgrade to Linux. I have 2 questions. First, how do I partition my hard drive, and secondly, what version of Linux is compatible for my wireless USB Network Adapter? --myselfalso 02:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya... Im not sure, you'd have to search the exact model of network adapter, there are many forums on the net, and irc channels that would gladly help, a quick search will uncover these. About partitioning your hard drive, if u just wish to run linux all by itself a reformat is all you need. Wikipedia isnt really the place for this discussion, but as a member of Overclockers Australia http://www.overclockers.com.au i know theres plenty of members there (and a dedicated linux subforum) that would be more than happy to help :) Nbound 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me in some direction! It is greatly appreciated. I actually felt a little wierd opeining a disucssion about Linux uploading; I agree, this isn't the place for this discussion. --myselfalso 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in helping me develop a footer specifically for the Sun, that those blackguards can't cry about? Just kidding about the last sentence - i think the process went very well, and I think your compromise box is a good solution, we'll see if others like it. But I do want to develop one for the Sun that contains the parts (core, chromosphere, flares, etc) and the emissions (is there a name for the collected group of solar wind, heliosheath, termination shock, etc?). --Exodio 03:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure... I'd be happy to :) -- Nbound 03:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good deal. I started it, I know there's stuff I'm missing on it. Gotta log off for the night, but i'll work on it this week unless you get to it first. Cheers --Exodio 03:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also - check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Worklist_Solar_system_01 - not sure if all those should be included, but if you find anything else relating to the structure of the Sun and its nearby effects in the interstellar medium, feel free to add it to the Worklist. --Exodio 03:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs... ill see what i can do... only 1pm in the afternoon here -- Nbound 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a first draft, it doesnt look or feel right yet, and im not sure what i should call each section... See if u can add anything else -- Nbound 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - looking good, i think. It really makes me think about the possibility of using more footers to organize the rest of the Astroobjects. And other categories as a whole. Side note, Solar Core needs to be created, it's a redirect to Sun. Ithink it needs to be a standalone page, as all the other elements of the Sun are. Also, should there be a distinction between Stellar core and Solar core? As in, should there be a page for Stellar Cores as a generic, and Solar Core as it pertains to our own Sun? Then, there could be Alpha Centauri's Stellar Core, etc. Off to bed, unfortunately. More later this week. --Exodio 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added CME and granules to the footer as per footer discussion page. Created Solar Core page which is currently just a slightly edited cut and paste from The Sun and Nuclear Fusion, so more work is needed there. Each line is roughly filled to an equal length which is not too long, Is there anything else that needs to be added?. I dont think their should be a link to stellar cores from the template, but perhaps it will be a good idea to do one of those links in italics at the top to Solar Core. -- Nbound 05:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Todo List -- Nbound 05:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Stellar Core "italics link" to Solar Core -- Nbound 06:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to your raping of my Dwarf Planet argument, I'd just like to give you a nice warm glass of "Go to Hell" -Thanks.

I made it quite clear why they were removed in your talk section -- Nbound 10:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nbound, I don't mean to edit-war over this page. However, have you acually read the California proposal? In full? It looks as if California lawmakers are very well aware of fact that they are irrelevant in this debate. It's not crucial information, but it is reasonably on topic (and hilariously funny). Given that we typically do not remove anything but obvious vandalism from talk pages, I think it should stand. --Stephan Schulz 09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry about that... just that theres been so many of them of the last few weeks, i just snapped :P. but yeah i did read it and it was a bit funny :P -- Nbound 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the Pluto chat, I wanted to apologize for using "censor" in the summary of the edit reverting your removal of the California text. After I posted it, I realised that it was too strong a term, with the potential to misrepresent your intentions. Instead, I should have said "remove" or "delete". Again, sorry for that. Cheers! --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) -- Nbound 02:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three changes (after revertions) from 67.22.255.134 in less than an hour. I´m new, perhaps banning? protecting the article? Albireo3000 23:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be an admin i think (im also fairly new) -- Nbound 23:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I tried to give you a barnstar back, for your work on the sun footer and ceres - but it won't let me. I don't know what's up, I am just pulling the code directly from my page and pasting it into editing yours. Help? --Exodio 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Barnstars - theres codes there for all the barnstars, bit strange it didnt work ur way though -- Nbound 03:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my adding of the discovery channel's i love pluto campaign - ballot and button image?

NPOV... -- Nbound 22:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id just like to drop in a quick thanks for giving me th barnstar =D -- Nbound 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it. Keep it up. Kris 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be having trouble with the <ref name> notation, so here's a quick tutorial.

1. For references you only use once, just use the regular ref tag (<ref>citation, or what have you</ref>) 2. For a reference used for multiple sections, here's what you do:

A. For the first reference, do just as you would a regular ref tag, except you change <ref> to <ref name="name of the citation">. Now, the name of the citation is basically for your own reference, as it doesnt appear in the main article (you could just put a number instead of a name, just remember to use quotes).

B. For every subsequent use of the same reference, just put the text <ref name="name of the citation"/>. The slash at the end is important, as if you forget it the article will disappear until the next backslash.

Again, if this is too much trouble, don't worry too much about it. It can still pass as a GA without it, and there are many editors who prefer other methods. Also, regarding sources in other parts of the article, you should read

DON'T USE THE <nowiki></nowiki>!!!!!! This is a command to display text without actually creating the reference. Just copy what you see above, not the underlying code. -Runningonbrains 04:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I quite deserve the barnstar, but you are quite welcome. Always glad to spread knowledge around. I will fail it as a GA for now, but now that I'm no longer a reviewer I'll see what I can do to get the article up to snuff. I've actually been meaning to get into more solar/extrasolar stuff, so this might be a good stepping point for me. Thanks -Runningonbrains 05:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do... its rare that a helping hand is given on wikipedia =) -- Nbound 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have clarified what I had intended by the info box - to wit, a collection of statements which could need modification if further solar system bodies are added to the dwarf planet category. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better-- Nbound

I have used your image and broken it apart to create a more System&oldid=79634881 interactive navigation. I was wondering if you could recreate that image adding other notable astronomical bodies such as pluto and other Trans neptunian objects (and perhaps Ceres too).

Furthermore, Larger or better spaced images would allow text to be aligned with the images. --Cat out 12:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this in an earlier revision:

Hope its what your after -- Nbound 06:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly nicer and more detailed, but is it possible to make it wider (so that pluto is easier to click)?

Also you may want to upload multiple files like I did. :)

--Cat out 12:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just double sized... cant get it to sharpen without looking like crap though -- Nbound 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wideness is better. However what I really want to do is put text below the individual planets as caption so each image should have enough wideness for that.

You may want to upload multiple images like I did. See commons:Category:Solar System Chart to see what I mean. I used paint to break them apart but I feel use of a more professional tool would have better end results. If you use a naming convention like I did it would be easier to manage.

--Cat out 13:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i honestly dont have the time... but i reckon the easiest way would be to use a spacer image between each pic... though u'd have to get it to match the gradient colour each time... which is why im feelin lazy, that and im sick as a dog, haha- Nbound 14:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be read when you get better:

User:Cool_Cat/Sandbox#Solar displays the real template structure I have in mind (I am woking on improving that as well). For it to work properly, I need wider and evenly distributed diagrams of planets. I have no way of doing this myself so that is why I am asking for your assistance.

--Cat out 18:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your sandbox... ive added an idea of possible navigation:

Basically-> Asteroid pic (link to asteroids)... Ceres in asteroids (link to ceres)... Asteroid pic again

It will need work to look right... but it seems a good idea... and could fairly easily be used for Pluto/Eris-- Nbound

That can be done yes. No opposition here. Yes it needs more work. :)

Is it possible to add stuff like the orth cloud and other similar objects?

Also consider coloring the planets and the sun. Mars is predominantly orangish red while the sun is yellow in color. :)

--Cat out 13:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hows this for two hours work =)

File:Eight Planets colour3.png

Shiny coloured planets for everyone =D

Cut it up however you see fit... -- Nbound 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slight changes made by other uses - updating this image appropriately -- Nbound 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the design. Do you think text would fit under the planets? I think it needs to be wider (space between planets) so that text can fit below the image as caption.

I'd like you to break the image into smaller peices and experiment weather or not text fits below it. After all, you can actualy fix anything problematic while I cannot.

--Cat out 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the consensus on the template page seems to be against the interactive footer, so i dont really want to waste time (it would take a few hours to perfect) -- Nbound 14:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a reason for their objections as they didnt mention any. So that is by no means that there is a concensus. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The vote has no meaning to me. Regardless the outcome of the vote, proper labeling and spacing of the image would be better. Lets work constructively on what we have. --Cat out 21:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the status . Hope you can help.

Davodd 03:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nbound - just to let you know that I've removed the "Brisbane" entry from the price table. I've nothing against Brisbane in particular, but the table should only have one entry per nation or it will quickly become unmanageable. If you prefer Brisbane to Sidney, I'll swap it around. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copy of Nbound's reply on my talk page
No problem... was just adding it to show the range of prices... as the Sydney prices are generally quite high (upto $1.40/L), while Brisbane enjoys far cheaper petrol (closer to $1/L)... but its fair enough youve removed it...

I agree - it would be nice to see a range, as there's often a disparity in pricing across nations. (It's certainly that way in Canada!) As I mentioned, adding new rows to the table is problematic, as the size will quickly become unmanageable. However, perhaps the solution is to have one row per nation with a range incorporated into the price (such as "$1.00-$1.50/liter"). Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh... looked at the format for Earth, thought about using the same format for Eris, completely forgot to apply the same format... glad you're paying attention. Thanks! --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have more data now. It would be nice to have an updated map. I also have a map from a lecture someone gave in the references you can compare with.--Filll 02:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the brief deletion of the 'structure' section of the Jupiter article. It was not intended vandalism, rather editing that got delayed.

You see there was some actual vandalism that I couldn't seem to remove(one sentence was: "Jupiter is one of the gay gas giants" or something of the like). Perhaps someone had already fixed it, but I hadn't thought of that at the time and thought it was something blocking its removal.

So I cut it and moved it to Word thinking to remove whatever it was, and then I had to do some chores and other tasks and when I looked back the damage to the Jupiter article had all been repaired.

So my error on that article. And apologies for what seemed to be vandalism. I was truthfully trying to fix something.Three-Tail 04:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mars is up for FAC again, and I noticed you did lots of work on it last time, I'm getting on with tidying up the references and external links, if you have the energy... :), kind regards, sbandrews 20:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nbound. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under

A tag has been placed on

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>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space Colonization at 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 0, December 2010
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 Improving the profile and activity of the project Much of the current discussion is taking place on the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page, however there is still some discussion on the original proposal page. User Activity Checks 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 Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of

opt-out list

.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 1, January 2011
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. Project News A new working group has been formed. The space stations working group is expected to work towards creating Featured topics related to space stations . It currently has three members. 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. A discussion regarding opening relations with the Aerospace biography task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation was held, but no conclusions were reached. The Article Alerts bot has resumed operation, and a problem with the information the bot had been delivering was discussed and resolved. 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 {{ WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne 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 , which does not currently have an article. On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower . The CubeSats do not currently have articles. On 15 December, a Compass-IGSO2 . 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 Shuttle Challenger on mission STS-51-L . Article News It was requested that the article Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act 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. Missile Range Instrumentation Ship is currently listed at requested moves, with a proposal to rename it tracking ship. The only open good article nomination is of the book Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet , which is currently awaiting review. 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. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of

opt-out list

.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 15:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 2, February 2011
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. Article news Reaction Engines Skylon is currently undergoing peer review, its discussion page can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reaction Engines Skylon/archive1 . 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 Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle Questions surrounding the transliteration of Russian names resurfaced, with a proposal to rename Yuri Usachev ongoing. Several long-standing merger proposals were closed. A proposal to merge Returnable satellite was merged into Fanhui Shi Weixing . 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. Stop press: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet has now been promoted to GA status. The Charts 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. № Article Movement 1 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↑14 (15) 2 Richard Branson ↑5 (7) 3 Neil Armstrong ↑2 (5) 4 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster ↑16 (20) 5 Global Positioning System ↓2 (3) 6 Apollo 11 ↑2 (8) 7 Satellite ↑4 (11) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger ↑42 (50) 9 Apollo 13 ↓3 (6) 10 NASA ↓1 (9) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for January). Selected Article: Yuri Gagarin 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. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of

opt-out list

.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Downlink
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight	Issue 3, March 2011
Project News News from Orbit Article News Direction of the Project The Charts Europa Project News 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 Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime] . 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. 4 March will also see the launch of the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data System communications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew. A New Dawn communications satellites. Both currently require articles. On 30 March, a Soyuz-FG will launch the manned Soyuz TMA-21 mission to the International Space Station carrying three Expedition 27 crewmembers. On 31 March, a 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. It was reported that a moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article , 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 Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight ) 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. Satellite was the most popular article of February, up six places from seventh in December. STS-133 was the highest climber in the top 10, up 78 places from 88th. January's most popular article, Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, dropped seven places to eighth. Moon landing remains ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories for the second month in a row. Of the top ten, two articles are featured content, two are listed as Good Articles, and the remaining six are assessed as C-class. № Article Movement 1 Satellite ↑6 (7) 2 Space Shuttle ↑11 (13) 3 NASA ↑7 (10) 4 Neil Armstrong ↓1 (4) 5 Apollo 13 ↑4 (9) 6 Global Positioning System ↓1 (5) 7 International Space Station ↑5 (12) 8 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster ↓7 (1) 9 Apollo 11 ↓3 (6) 10 STS-133 ↑78 (88) For the full list of the top 1,500 popular pages within the project, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages (or the archived record for February). Selected Article: Europa 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: “ The Europa rocket was an early expendable launch system of the European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO), which was the precursor to the European Space Agency and its Ariane family of launchers. The programme was initiated by the UK and the first launch occurred in August 1967. Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the 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. Published by WikiProject Spaceflight, if you have any content you wish to include in future newsletters, please contribute

You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of

opt-out list

.

Delivered by