User talk:WDGraham/Archive 2009

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Thanks, I've replied there. --
  W…
  11:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You found the one EVA that had been eluding me as a discrepancy between the list and the ISS report figures! Thank you so much! Ariel♥Gold 02:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --

W…

11:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Can i ask you a question about a black brant rocket? Mickman1234 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Carrier rockets are more my area of expertise, but I'll have a go. --
  W… 10:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Has there been a time where a sub-orbital rocket accidently went into LEO? Mickman1234 (talk
  ) 17:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to make good use of it, and I will make sure that I don't abuse it. --

W…

22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of R-7 launches (1957-1959)

This is an automated message from

List of R-7 launches (1957-1959), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: List of R-7 launches

. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

talk

) 20:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This bot should be reprogrammed to detect {{

W…

20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's actually a good idea and simple to implement. Please stand by. — Coren ^(talk) 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Phear my leet perl skillz.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't actually expecting a response from that, I was planning to contact you about it later, and never got round to it. --

W…

07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I left a {{talkback}} on Coren's talk page so he'd see this. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. --
  W…
  09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done, thanks. --
  W…
  07:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• No you got it all wrong, I'm meant to be Thanking you! :-)   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm thanking you for letting me know about this. I want to make my opinion on this matter (ie. that FR will kill Wikipedia) very clear. --
    W…
    17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have heard of it, but it is not very widespread. I would suggest merging with
  W…
  15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All of the pages on timeline of spaceflight needs to be updated. Mickman1234 (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I am aware of that, I put the update tags on them. --
  W…
  07:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There already on there. Mickman1234 (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I put them there --
  W…
  19:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For the uncountable amount of effort that you put into keeping the space launch lists, the portal and so many articles regarding spaceflight up to date --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. --
  W…
  20:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:International Space Station#The Failed FAC. Thank you.

I just put this message on the talk page of all members of

talk

) 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've received a request asking if you could change the cards to use the same pips, compare File:Cards-3-Heart.svg and File:Cards-10-Heart.svg. Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09t00:52z

Odd. They should look the same. There may be some form of display error. I'll look into it later, but I don't have time right now. --

W…

01:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you chime in here. I do believe that you appear to be the guru in this area. Also, thanks for putting together the 20XX in spaceflight series. I use those articles frequently.

• I have replied there. --
  W…
  08:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your corrections. The news about Personas onboard communication equipment failiure emerged today in the newspaper as citation of Russian vice-premier Sergei Ivanov.

Sad.

Enyhow you have put "citation" needed mark regaridng CCD pixel size. Well, I can tell you there is no citation. It was my assumption based on few premises: the main mirror is difraction limited, designer wanted to achieve maximum image resolution. Put that two together in optics formula you get optimum pixel size. For blue light pixel size should be no greater than 7µm.

I said that CCD should not be greater than 11µm because thats optimum pixel size for red spectrum. Beyond that we have non visible light which is not interesting for high-resolution imagery. The satellite probably have infra red CCD sensors too but I didnt want to speculate that much.

Anyhow, it is not known what sensor is used (because it is classified) but most probably they used the same sensor as in civilian Resurs-DK: the 9µm chip.

If they used 9µm chip the maximum image resolution is 33 cm.

So. The ccd pixel size should be the same as optics airy disk. That is: 1.22 * green light vavelenth * f-number = 1.22*0.00000055*20/1.5 = 0.00000895 m so thats 9µm

The image resolution can be calculated by Rayleigh formula: imaging height * 1.22 * green light vavelenth / main mirror aperture =714000 * 1.22 * 0.00000055 / 1.5 = 0.32 meters = 32 cm

But they maybe used 7µm CCD sensor which would yield 26 cm resolution when observing in blue spectrum.

Anyhow I wanted to ask you if you can review Resurs-DK article :) -=HyPeRzOnD=- (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just remember that there is a fine line between logic and

original research

.

Anyway, I've had a look at

W…

22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Ill do that.

Regarding confusion. The Resurs-DK is one of the Neman class military reconnaissance satellite first flown in the 1982. Only difference is new communication electronics. Persona is probably the same as Resurs-DK, they just replaced original 0.5m diameter telescope with 1.5m.

Vice premier said that Personas electronics failed because Russia inability to access high quality

radiation hardened

.

In the meantime Russia is sending old film returning satellites which they have in big quantity form their Soviet past. Those old satllites use similar spacebus as Resurs-DK1 and Persona.

I believe that 70% of the parts used in Resurs-DK and Persona are built 20 years ago or maybe more. Which is not bad thing. That old stuf is more reliable than their new stuf.

The main problem is that

radiation hardened

electronics is not sold off the shelf.

Russians managed to get good electronics for Resurs-DK because Resurs-DK is some kind of joint venture with the Italians. Resurs-DK is in orbit for almost 3 years. Italians probably provided good quality

radiation hardened

elctronics.

But for Persona Russians managed to get some counterfited

radiation hardened

elctronics.

It is the shame. They wasted perfectly good and very expensive mirror with 1.5 diamater.

Regarding

original research. You are right. But the problem is that many details are not published because their are classified esspecialy for Persona. But you can deduct details from available ones. In example. Resurs-DK focal plane unit is obviously using sensor strip composed of of 36 individual CCD sensor. How do I know that. Russian published sample raw images from the Resurs-DK1. On each image there are visible 36 strips. Each strip is from one CCD. In example: http://sun.ntsomz.ru/data_new/granule/gr_brw.php?gr=RSDK01-9265-2-1-20080209195120-20080209195132

That could be classifed as orignal research but thats like you see 4 footprints trails in the snow and you know thats from 2 persons not one. Thank you again. Bye.

-=HyPeRzOnD=- (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems we may have a slight problem with an editor in regards to the articles on launch vehicles.

• I've merged them. I can't see any real harm in leaving a redirect. --
  W…
  10:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I have no problem with it as a user page. It was having it in the main namespace that I objected to. --

W…

17:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have redone most of the Ariane 4 article. Please help by expanding it. I really don't know much about Ariane 4. Regards --Johnxxx9 (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Looks fairly good. I'll try to have a proper look at it later, but I'm fairly busy with the rewrite of
  W…
  08:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and tweaked the infobox to conform with Ariane 5. Still missing the first and last flight dates of the 42L (List of Ariane launches seemingly does not have any of the 13 launches of that variant). -MBK₀₀₄ 20:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It does now...and the Ariane 5. --
      W…
      23:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be interested in your thoughts about this. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to continue this discussion on

W…

16:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've finished the conversion of this list, now if you would just work your magic with the yearly summary. I'm off to 2006. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I just need to finish off the EVAs and add a few more images to the lead. I've also stuck an infobox on 2006 to help you out there. I'm going down to the other end of the timeline - some of the pages there really need help... --

W…

23:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll probably meet in the mid-1980s. I'll drop you a note when I finish each year to clean-up the mess I seem to make, plus you can author the summary far better than I could. Saw the infoboxes to 2003; question about first astronaut, in 2006 should we count Iran for Anousheh Ansari as she is here? -MBK₀₀₄ 23:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• We'll probably meet in the mid 60's unless you decide to create some of the missing pages - some of the 1960s articles are really bad and will probably need about a week to clean up. I've set up a status board
  W…
  01:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I may create some of them... As for Ansari, she is an Iranian citizen by birth and Iranian law, and I assume an American citizen by naturalization. Therefore the question about dual citizens comes up especially with Andy Thomas and Australia for 1996. I'm not quite sure what to do, but since the dual citizens appear in the timeline, we should probably stay consistent with that. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

2006

I've got a pesky template error occurring in July that I can't seem to fix. There is also something at the extreme top just above the first launch of January. Can you fix these two things? -MBK₀₀₄ 20:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

•  Done They were typos, I've fixed both. You'd miscapitalised the "NoPL" string in the STS-121 launch, so it used the default rowspan (set for one payload, the launch had two), which pushed the remarks onto a new row. The text at the top was from the Molniya-M launch, where "TLS-PL" had been entered instead of "TLS-RL", and the rocket thought it was a payload. The code appeared at the top because it was between rows (it normally sets the row colour). --
  W…
  20:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Hmm, I would have never caught those. Thanks. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem. I've added some code to prevent the first one, and I'm going to add some code to TLS-PL to provide details in the event of an error. --
      W…
      20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • And I've now finished converting 2006. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Nice work. I'll run through it in the morning. --
          W…
          23:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
          • You can add 2005 list to run through as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was quick. --
    W…
    07:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It doesn't take long when the suborbital flights are missing. I'll get to work on 04 and 03 today and you'll have those ready in the morning your time. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, GMT to me implies imprecision, and for times that precise—given to the nearest second—GMT just doesn't fit.

But you're right. "Blitz edits" really do require consensus before they can be implemented. --  Denelson83  07:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've finished another, but I've run into another error that I can't seem to find. Mind taking a look at 2002 in spaceflight? -MBK₀₀₄ 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Corrected. An opening bracket was missing. --
  W…
  10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• You seem to be doing a pretty good job. I'll have a look and see if I can help tomorrow. In the meantime, I've been wondering whether the tables would be better off if the "Function" column was merged into the "Remarks" column. Otherwise it's going to get quite squashed. What do you think? --
  W…
  22:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you are talking about the EVA tables on the function and remarks. That is a good idea, since the remarks are usually just EVA records that are made on the individual spacewalk or a task that failed. That reminds me that the 09 EVA 1 makes Fincke the American record holder for Orlan EVAs. We should get a cite for that and add it in. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would appreciate if you could come back to the discussion of Ukrane at the article of Satellite. My suggestion is to add numbers 1 to 9 to the list of countries, so people would know which countries have independently launched satellite, OR delete Ukrane from the list since it has inherited it's Rocket from Soviet Union (this option may not be good) Or make a separate list of independent counties. I have mentioned these suggestion. So, if you come back to the discussion, it would speed up the process so we can get it done. Best regards Parvazbato59 (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If Ukraine were deleted, someone would just reinsert it. The first option seems better. It works at

W…

19:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you and I suggested those solutions based on what we have on Timeline of first orbital launches by country which is nicely described and listed. I would be waiting for your support in here. Thanks. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have already posted there. --
  W…
  19:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it. Of course after mentioning it in the discusion page. what do you think? Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looks really good now with your changes. Thanks for your help. Best Regards. Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you put a deletion note on the category. However I don't see a formal nomination to discuss the issue. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• There was one, but it has closed (as keep) now anyway. --
  W…
  17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not update Progress M-65 and Progress M-66 to use {{Infobox Cargo spacecraft}}. Also, Johannes Kepler ATV already exists and could use the new infobox as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I haven't got round to them yet. --
  W…
  23:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I've voted to keep it. I don't like the way its being done. It seems like an insidious attack on temporal templates. They're picking them off one at a time to avoid drawing attention to it. I'm going to file an RFC on it in a couple of days which should resolve that issue. --
  W…
  09:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For KSLV would be S. Korea. Dosent matter who produce first stage. Same apply for GSLV. In latter case it would be India(there was plans to get upper stage from abroad- but canceled now). TestPilot^{talk to me!} 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

{{fact}} --

W…

01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

With such logic you should start editing country of origin in

GSLV article. Third stage for it was actually made in Russia. But that make no sense. Sure, if you would find a way to introduce Russia into country of origin of GSLV(and I will object it), then I guess same edit could be introduced to Zenith article. TestPilot^{talk to me!}

01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And don't forget to add Russia as country of origins for Atlas III and Atlas V. First stage engine is mach more sophisticated and expansive piece then third stage. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 01:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am not concerned about first stage engines, however if an entire stage is produced in a country, that country should be listed. There is a variant of the GSLV with an Indian upper stage. By your logic, KSLV should be listed as all-Russian. --
  W…
  07:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

India is in charge of GSLV. So GSLV is an Indian rocket. Korea is in charge of KSLV. So KSLV is a Korean rocket. United States is in charge of Atlases. So Atlas III and V are American rockets. Ukraine is in charge of Zenith 2 and 3SL. So they are Ukrainian rockets. All this rockets use foreign components. And again, if you think that one special component make rocket belong to another country... Then in case of upper stage you should add Russia as a country of origin of

GSLV article. TestPilot^{talk to me!}

20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. I'm going to move this discussion to
  W…
  21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like there's a few new articles. The 43 and 46 ones seem to have some formatting issues (I didn't have time to check the rest), and 46 also seems to contain some inaccurate information. I'll have a look at them tomorrow morning. --
  W…
  22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Great work as always. Guess that shows what happens when you don't watchlist redlinks that you know will be filled-in eventually either by you or another editor. (As I go off and watchlist the remaining redlinks for CCAFS, VAFB, Baikonur, and Plesetsk. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition of your quality work to not only maintain but also author new content relating to spaceflight and rocketry. Your willingness to help out when others ask is also worth recognition and something that is extremely valued. -MBK004 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll try to keep doing whatever I'm doing... :) --
  W…
  20:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not for main discussion. Two new videos of KSLV (not an actual rocket, just a model). Korean part only small conus on top. But without Korea project would never happened. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• By that argument,
  W…
  11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a friendly note on Greg felde. I've deleted the article as you requested, but I'm not sure it needs to be oversighted. He gave his phone number, but only said what his area code is not. However, if you want to go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and email a request for oversight on that one, be my guest.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• It looked like a US phone number. Being British I don't know much about them, so I'll take your suggestion that no further action is required. --
  W…
  19:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Which moves in particular do you think are controversial? May I point out that in several cases these small changes to transliteration were actually the spelling used in the article text and/or in the referenced material. In general, the changes were made to name-forms that were already predominant for articles about other people with the same name. What's your evidence that these changes are controversial? RandomCritic (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• I can't really be specific, I feel that they all have the potential to be controversial. As for evidence, several of the moves have already been reverted by someone else, which is a sure sign that other users have objections to this course of action. There are references for the "alternative" spellings, and in some cases there are only references for that transliteration (I inserted a {{
  W…
  21:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Excellent User Page Award
		For creating a beautiful and interesting user page. Cheers! — Eustress talk 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. --
  W…
  19:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Soyuz TMA-15

On In the news candidates page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks --
  W…
  12:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

{{talkback|Colds7ream|Human spaceflight portal}}

{{talkback|Colds7ream|Black Arrow}}

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kosmos 959, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Kosmos 880. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

• False positive, similar but not the same. I am the only author of
  W…
  20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kosmos 967, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Kosmos 880. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

• Wrong again, see above. --
  W…
  20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kosmos 1171, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Kosmos 880. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on

• Another error (see above). This is starting to get annoying. --
  W…
  20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You did such a great job on NOTS-EV-1 Pilot, would you care to try your hand at NOTS-EV-2 Caleb? Although it also never had a confirmed success, it has a claim to be the smallest orbital launch system design. Some links: [1], [2], [3] --IanOsgood (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) (Portland State Aerospace Society member)

• Done. --
  W…
  08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to get in on this discussion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you confident that each launch deserves an article of its own? Perhaps a list or even a table would be more appropriate. Not that it's unnotable/unsourced, but there's really nothing to say apart from dates and raw data.

• I think they do. I'm just creating the raw stubs at the moment, but at some later point more qualitative data regarding the payload and orbital details could be added. If they were US spacecraft we could guarantee that they would already have been done, so it is also a case of trying to reverse systemic bias. --
  W…
  17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Colds7ream/RfA

• Congratulations, and good luck with your new duties. I am sure you will do well. --
  W…
  16:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Talkback |Template talk:TLS-M}} (sdsds - talk) 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Done --
  W…
  07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Before implementing Template:Spaceflight crew on hundreds of pages, could we have some discussion about its aesthetics and whether it's an improvement on the text listing we had before? Rillian (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Navy blue84}}

• Thanks. --
  W…
  17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Unha-2 a 2 stage or 3 stage vehicle ?? Astronautix uses the Taepodong-2 for Unha and has it's specifications. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three. It was the third stage that failed. I have corrected it in the article --
  W…
  12:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the estimates do give these specifications. I used the one from David Wright's paper. Otherwise should we be using Astronautix specifications ?? I have used those on Naro, Shavit etc etc. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't give too much weight to Astronautix, its a large site run by one person, and this does cause quite a few factual errors. --
  W…
  12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Oh, and he made up most of the stage names. --
    W…
    12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

North Korea hasn't (most probably willn't) released any specs. So we do have to depend on estimates. I don't think even Israel or South Korea have released the specs of their vehicles. We could have the specs by David Wright and mention it as being speculative.--Johnxxx9 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. By the way, you might want to read the
  W…
  12:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I couldn't begin to figure out why I was being invited to an RfM regarding a topic I've never really touched by a SPA. lol. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Same here. Then I noticed the user's low edit count and thought I'd best check his contributions. I've sent him a warning for editing tests. --
  W…
  11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure about the name, I would suggest listing it at
  W…
  15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the future manned spacecraft of Russia. The program was officially disclosed at the beginning of this year and I thought that there there should be an article, similar to that of Orion. So I tried to make the article look similar to the Orion format with references from Russian Military Space web, BBC articles and some other sources. Is this a bit premeditated ?? --Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine. --
  W…
  16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

An administrator has deemed the image replaceable but no image is available in the public domain. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In converting the TLS lists, I've come to the point where I need to ask a few questions of you and also impose a bit.

• In the infobox, the maiden flight and retired fields, should I include the individual Shuttle orbiters (1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1992) or just once in 1981, this would also be a question with the last flights of the individual orbiters (1986, 2003, 2010)
  • I would advocate for the individual orbiters since that is how I'm tracking the first and last flights of the different versions of LVs (e.g. Delta II 6920, 6925; Ariane 4 44LP, 42L, etc.)
• Although I am quite capable of converting to the new format and adding in the new features, there are two features which I am not quite comfortable with doing:
  • Lead - I can find the images but I have not been able to duplicate the professional-like tone that yours have
  • Summary - Some are done and are waiting for the pie chart to be created
  • Copyediting - Since I have done the conversions, I do not feel as though I am able to be objective with this task

Thanks -MBK₀₀₄ 04:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that for consistency, if we are going to list individual variants, then we should list the Shuttles separately. It would be nice if we could find a way of noting which ones were the first flight of that rocket/family as well. (eg. showing that the first flight of the Atlas V 401 was the maiden flight of the Atlas V, and that the final flight of the Scout G-1 was the final flight of the entire Scout family). I will try and address the other three points when I have more time, as these can take a while. I'll probably try and alternate between doing an article and copyediting a couple at the other end of the list. I'm quite a way through 1962 (its taking a very long time as there are a hell of a lot of suborbital launches, and the old list is so bad I'm doing a complete rewrite. I tend to do a bit a day, and then take a break, and because its a complete rewrite, I'm doing it offline so no content is lost in the meantime). I've been leaving the leads as I feel that we should prioritise getting the content in first, and then do the leads later. If you see it differently, please let me know. --
  W…
  08:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the priorities of getting the content in and converted before dealing with the new things we are introducing. Based on this I have noted the maiden and final flights of the orbiters for the years that have infoboxes currently. As for showing the first and final flights of a family, that is something we will have to think about, but it would also be dealt with in the lead when it is written. I know how long it takes to do a complete rewrite, I created 1990 and 1989, and those took quite a long time and I did not even take time to look for references. That being said, please do not feel obligated to break your rhythm to do something I have asked of you above unless you feel that the break would be beneficial to you. I just needed to coordinate our efforts to get a sense of the pace ahead, since it seems as though I'm progressing faster (since the years I'm working on are generally complete) we'll probably meet up in the early 70s. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got the easy end of the list :). There were over 600 launches in 1962. A break can be very useful, and while I often find it helps to do something completely different (I'm currently using

W…

09:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Eeek, 600 launches, you are right that I got the easy end... As for the GOES list, it looks great, and as I suspected, I could not have done it better. -MBK₀₀₄ 10:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --

W…

10:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could be quite interesting. There are probably some other programmes this could be done for as well; TIROS, Intelsat, DMSP, etc. There is already a list for GPS, but it could probably use a cleanup. Obviously there would have to be some differences between the lists (a "first image" field wouldn't be much use for TDRS), but a similar format could be used throughout. I've just finished 1962, so I'll have a look at the TDRS one now. --
  W…
  09:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. --
  W…
  11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for GPS IIR-1

On June 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article GPS IIR-1, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --

W…

16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the GFDL wiki page and cannot understand how my proposal violates the GFDL. Please could you elaborate (and suggest a possible work around?) --Medic463 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought to the attention of one of the FAC delegates: User_talk:SandyGeorgia#FAC_to_keep_an_eye_on, just in case so there aren't any more problems. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. --
  W…
  23:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the bug that Twinkle left on my page. I try to be a pretty good editor and hate to have a CSD on my record. (I've had pages deleted in the past, and will probably again in the future, but a CSD just seems particularly ugly.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, sorry about sending you the notice in the first place. I was trying to tag it as you moved it, so Twinkle stuck the CSD tag on the redirect, and as you were "credited" as the creator of the redirect (because you moved it), it sent you the warning. --
  W…
  19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fotoguzzi (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I know what you mean, I'll have another look at it later, and see if I can help out at all. Also, there's probably been some media coverage of the proposal that could be used for citations. --
  W…
  21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

thx, Fotoguzzi (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On In the news candidates page .

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

After I'm done running through the rest of the articles marked with {{WP Space exploration}}, I had planned to TfD it. Would that actually be appropriate?
— Ω (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see any reason to keep it. Might be an idea to post a link to the discussion on
  W…
  15:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you missed any. I had only started at 7:19 (Pacific time). I didn't actually count the articles that you went back over and changed, but it looks about right... Regardless, I can go through the list again on my end and see if any of them are missing the |spaceflight= tag.
— Ω (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• That sounds about right. And thanks for doing them, we've been trying to get rid of that old template for some time. --
  W…
  15:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, all set. I've actually marked {{WP Space exploration}} as a {{db-t3}}, since it seems to meet that criteria.
— Ω (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the template as it didn't seem to be displaying properly. It's still being transcluded by about 16 pages outside of the main namespace (mostly templates). If you've still got AWB set up, can you run through a list of "What Transcludes Page (all NS)". Otherwise I'll do it later. Thanks. --

W…

16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's easy enough to do. I thought that all of those should remain and end up being redlinked is all (at least, until they were manually changed...)

The links should, but not the transclusions. --

W…

16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, done! ;)
— Ω (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --

W…

16:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hiya GW, I wanted to get your opinion. I see a bunch of instances now that look like {{L2}} [[Lagrangian point]]. Over-linking? I was considering going back and changing them to delink Lagrangian point, so that they would all look like {{L2}} Lagrangian point, but the point templates are fairly small... I don't know, I'm kind of torn about it.
— Ω (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can you give me an example? --
  W…
  19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

2005 TO74 is a pretty good example. look at the last sentence.
— Ω (talk

) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. Perhaps you could start a discussion at

W…

19:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clean-up this article, it seems like it was taken from the French version and fed into an online translator. As can be imagined, the level of English and the grammar is wholly unprofessional, plus most of the wikilinks lead to French or German articles instead of their equivalents in English. I made an attempt to fix the article, but there is so much wrong it might be better for you to completely refurbish it as you have proven capable of. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've started work on it. I'm splitting the tables out to a separate article (
  W…
  12:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much, I truly cannot fathom how people can consider an online translation to be adequate for an encyclopedic article. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • They can sometimes be useful, if used properly, I admit that I have used translated versions of articles from other Wikipedias as the basis for articles (
      W…
      22:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have finished the list, and I'm now about a third of the way through the prose content. --
      W…
      16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The references probably need a cleanup, but I'm done for now. Can you have a look and see if there are any remaining issues? Thanks. --
      W…
      21:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I made a few tweaks on the list, I'll take a look at the article a bit later, probably while you are sleeping. When I put this on your list of things to-do, I didn't mean for you to do it immediately ;) -MBK₀₀₄ 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, thanks. I'm just going to finish a stub I started earlier, and then I'll be calling it a night. Thanks for fixing those errors in the list. I'll try and have another look through it myself tomorrow, add a few references and see if there are any other errors. I noticed that somebody created a
          W…
          22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that it seems to be useless, perhaps a
            PROD would work in this case, since I don't believe CSD qualifies, but I don't think it worthy of AfD. (I'll leave the PROD to you) -MBK₀₀₄
            22:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'm glad we could clear that up. --
  W…
  16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

GW, I have added a discussion section on STS-134's talk page. I am not sure if this is appropriate to contact people to see if they can read it and comment. If not please forgive me, and if so I would like to know what you think. Also if you could let me know if it is OK to do this, then I would like to get others opinions too.--Navy blue84 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• That's okay. I've replied there. It might be an idea to let
  W…
  16:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Should we add STS-134 to 2010 in spaceflight? Also, I just went through '10 and '11 today and it seems as though it hasn't been updated quite as much as the upcoming flights on 2009 have. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, it should be now that it is officially manifested. I'll have a look at updating the lists later. By the way, I've just realised that the active launch complexes at Canaveral (but not KSC) were redesignated "Space Launch Complexes" a few years ago. I think this applies to complexes 17, 36, 37, 40 and 41. I'm not sure about 20 and 46. Should the articles be moved, or left where they are? --
  W…
  06:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I have seen the pads designated both ways in recent documentation. To be sure, we need something official from the USAF that states the date of the redesignation. Plus, you will have a pretty massive AWB run to rename all of these if we do change them. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Most of the USAF press releases, etc, that I have seen say "Space Launch Complex", as do a number of patches, etc. According to Jonathan's Space Report the change occurred during 1997. --
      W…
      21:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • If we can reference it for the articles, then I don't see why not, just have that AWB run ready because I am not looking forward to making this change manually for the articles that link to them that will be affected. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • To be honest, there probably isn't too much harm in leaving redirects for now (
          W…
          21:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, I can get some of the pre-97 ones because I still have to write and convert many of those years. I'll hold off on converting until you finish the moves. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• ←I've finished the moves. Server's running too slowly for AWB to do much good at the moment, so I'll just do the templates (manually), and then sort the other links out later. --
  W…
  23:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. --
    W…
    08:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw the creation of 1977 in spaceflight, and it seems as the brand-new user Lovetravel86 (talk · contribs) is going to create all of the redlinks to this standard since they just created 1975 as well. I have left them a message noting the standards and the formatting used, and asking them to read-up before creating anymore. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And '78, as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. --
  W…
  10:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned up the three that he did. I think that for future articles prevention will be better than cure, so I'm going to run off a few quick placeholder articles (probably just the manned flights), to fill the gaps before he does. --
    W…
    17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, and that also means that all TLS articles up to 2011 now exist. --
    W…
    21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • An excellent solution even though I was looking forward to creating the missing articles in the same fashion as I did for 1990 and 1989, one single edit upload of the entire orbital listing. On a positive note, the new editor has expressed some willingness to help out and I have started a dialogue with them along with supplying a link to the status page of our progress with the update. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, hopefully he'll prove useful. As for the articles, they're only placeholders, so you can overwrite them if you want (or otherwise just copy and paste the launches that I've listed into your ones. --
  W…
  08:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit was not a test, but rather an attempt to update the WikiProject Directory - I suspected WP:Spaceflight was inactive. You would know much better than I how active your WikiProject is - if it is still active you can mark your WikiProject active in the Directory here. Thank you. Andyo2000 (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have marked it as active. What, exactly, led you to conclude that it was inactive? --
  W…
  14:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The WikiProject's page history showed relatively few page changes over the past 6-7 months, which usually indicates an inactive or semi-active project. My reasoning was that if the WP was still active, someone would catch it immediately and revert the tag - just as you did. I added about 10 tags yesterday, and only WP:Spaceflight has been reverted. My apologies for rashly tagging the WP, but the WikiProject directory does need updating. Andyo2000 (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I accept that you were probably acting in good faith, and I have dealt with the situation. I'm not sure where the number of tags reverted came from, as I have reverted four myself. --
  W…
  15:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article for a particular flight of a launch vehicle . It would sound OK with manned-spacecraft launches but not for all launchers. I would recommend a merger of Flight-4 with the main article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, but there should be for every satellite placed into orbit, which is the case here. I've replied on the Falcon 1 talk page. --
  W…
  17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

hi GW Simulations, I just wanted to let you know that the main NASA article is undergoing a Good Article Review. Most of the gruntwork is done now, and the article could use a fresh set of eyes to copy edit it, add more materiel, and offer suggestions and feedback. If you have a chance, I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks!
— Ω (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look later, but it is not really my area. --

W…

08:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fotoguzzi (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have replied on
  W…
  10:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have replied there. --
  W…
  09:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies. I left a message over at WP:SPACE since so many blackops articles are space related, but I am happy to see your two sense on the sources. Striking the right balance between WP:RS and Black ops is hard, and while I do try to take all aspects into consideration there are times when I feel this is almost a lost cause. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 23:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem. I'm just glad I can help out. --
      W…
      09:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to the

Military history WikiProject

! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our
  navigation box
  points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several
  detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics
  .
• We have a number of
  task forces
  that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a
  style guide
  that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I've been working in that area for some time, so I thought it would be a good idea to formalise my involvement by joining the project. --
    W…
    12:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to also welcome you to the Military technology and engineering task force‎. Glad to have you aboard (and those are some damn fine images you've created; highly impressive!) EyeSerene^talk 12:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks --
  W…
  13:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please take a look at Progress M-67? It seems very unclear right now. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GW:

It would have been nice if you put a message on my talk page regarding the changes you made. I did not have a big problem, but I was in process with the template (perhaps I should have tagged it).

Regarding your deletion of this section:

== Usage ==

	 
Place {{tl|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the end of an article, but above any categories.

{{collapsible option}}

The reason why I added that in there is because I added the state variable to each of those templates, so they can be configurable and I did not want to add the {{collapsible option}} on each of them. So, it would be great if you could either add that text to each of the template documentation subpages (over 100!!!) or revert your change. Thank ya!

  Jonverve  ^{Talk  Contrib}  18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

A) I will not think twice about editing any page that is not tagged as {{

Yeah, I suspected I should have tagged it in use. I found a way around the naming conflict.   Jonverve  ^{Talk  Contrib}  18:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Great solution, I like it!   Jonverve  ^{Talk  Contrib}  14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking if ARV should be seperated form ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) as a seperate article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Probably. Why not put a {{
  W…
  15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Talk:Progress M1-5/GA1 has a review now, plus the reviewer made some edits to the article they have requested you take a look at: [4] -MBK₀₀₄ 06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll get onto the two stubs as soon as I've addressed the issues with the Progress article. Thanks. --
  W…
  12:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• I've taken care of the two redirects. I decided to use
  W…
  17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for getting to that so quickly. -MBK₀₀₄ 18:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
    • No problem, and I'll try to get onto AsiaSat 2 soon. Probably after 1964. (although the todo list is designed to present articles in a random order, so who knows). --
      W…
      19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Take your time, the only reason I added it is because AsiaSat 5 replaces AsiaSat 2 and since the new stub will be getting some page views over the next two weeks. There are plenty more that I could add but didn't ;) -MBK₀₀₄ 19:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, it was the first one to come up, so it has been done. --
          W…
          22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
          • • Imagine how that happened ;) -MBK₀₀₄ 05:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress M1-5

Let me be the first to congratulate you on the writing of this Good Article! Don't let it stop at GA, I think this one has a chance at Featured Article (I could be nuts, but that was the most detailed GA review I have ever seen on an article) and it would equal the A-Class review we do over at

• Thanks. I've
  W…
  08:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A-Class is not an arbitrary rating awarded by a single editor, usually it requires at least three to agree to such. I would be careful proposing a formal procedure unless the project is active enough to sustain the process, only a few have and even the Biography WikiProject has not been able to, with MILHIST being the only major user of the A-Class Review and the rating. There is one thing that you will get called on at FAC,
    WP:ALT is now being strictly enforced, so you might want to go ahead and take care of that. -MBK₀₀₄
    08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • One more thing, you don't need to be dropping the talkbacks on my talk page, I do have this one on my watchlist. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• Okay. I'll get onto it --
  W…
  09:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've set alt text for all the images. I'll hold off on the proposal to WPSpace for a formal A class procedure for now. I'll try and consider if there is some way to make the procedure informal enough for less active projects. --
    W…
    09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested in the results of this discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#NASASpaceFlight.com -MBK₀₀₄ 22:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll keep an eye on it. --
  W…
  22:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to jeopardize the GA status. Feel free to remove the material if you think that would be better. I happen to have interviewed one of the characters recently, but supporting sources are hard to locate. Annoyingly, there is an ideal source currently available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lzdwj/The_One_Show_05_08_2009/ on the BBC iPlayer (have a look, scrolling forward to about 17 minutes - all the required references are supplied by the BBC here). However, like other iPlayer material, it will only be on-line for a limited period, so it isn't much use as an enduring source. There is some good biographical material about Dommett's role in the British rocket industry in footnote 2 at http://www.brohp.org.uk/downloads/prospero2_article.pdf though this is about Blue Streak not Black Arrow. Again Dommett is quoted on the BBC website, just under the photo of a Black Arrow rocket here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3388535.stm Nonetheless, after so many years of secrecy, it is true that strong references are still hard to come by. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a reference to the TV programme, and I'll look into whether the other two references can be used later. --
  W…
  11:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that the current title is more appropriate per
  W…
  23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, i was looking at the guidelines. All missions basically have their name fully spelled out, and looking at NASA's pages, their fully spelled out names are the official ones. I just moved it, but i'll go ahead and file a move request. thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navarenko (talk • contribs) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I've "moved" it back. There are quite a few that aren't spelled out in full, and I think that in this case the spacecraft is far more commonly known by its abbreviation. Please note that
  W…
  00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• ok, that works for me. Sorry for the un-wiki way of doing it, not fully up to speed. i'll go ahead and edit the LCROSS one. --Navarenko (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright. And don't worry about the mistakes, everyone makes them to begin with. I made some pretty bad errors when I started editing. If you stick around, you'll grow out of them. --
    W…
    00:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had a look for an autoreviewer icon just after I became one, but I couldn't find anything. That icon was created a few days later, so I missed it. I've added it now. --
  W…
  07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• That is text which was intended for use as a default value in an older incarnation of the template, which was simply never removed. It is now used as part of the presentation for template wrappers, and it would only ever be used in the event that the launch slipped to an unknown date. In that case transclusion would be inhibited, so it never makes it out of the template namespace (with the exception of one page in the Wikipedia namespace). If I can figure out which layer of the template it is in, I'll amend it anyway to make it clearer. --
  W…
  15:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I've found one instance in which the wording is used in an article, but I think with the right parameters that can be fixed. If the wording is not used anymore, I'd prefer it if it would simply be removed, if only to prevent other users as daft as me to think that the template is a regular "future" template (and, subsequently, to prevent them to get the idea to use it as such). :) But, either way, you're entirely right that the template is not and should not be included in the discussion about the deprecation of "future" templates. --Conti|✉ 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That instance was completely out of scope, and I'd already replaced it with {{
      W…
      16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright, thanks for notifying me. :) --Conti|✉ 16:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
        • No problem. I've replaced the text with an error message to avoid further problems. --
          W…
          16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Awesome, thanks! --Conti|✉ 16:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think the Arrow (missile) article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry? Personally, I think not. Shall I remove the tag? Flayer (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll reply there. --
  W…
  14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Replied there. Flayer (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, I'm watching it. --
      W…
      14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no recollection of being involved in any previous discussion in that area. --
  W…
  11:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, it was just one of a number of random AfDs I participated in, in an area that I do not generally contribute to. I have not firm opinion either way. --
  W…
  11:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

this article is filled with unverified claims and references pointing to nowhere! Forums links and false pages have been given as references. I have put unverified claim and cleanup infobox. Have a look because I am an India and people might think I am vandalizing the article. Thanks.--Johnxxx9 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Awful article. I've had a go at it, and I'll have another one later. --
  W…
  14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, WDGraham. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Believe it or not, you placed the seed into the mind of Tom for this, so it is probably best if you respond -MBK₀₀₄ 06:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your efforts to help improve our Black Project pages, and in particular your suggestion that we create a task force for the,, I hereby award you the What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar. If it had not been for your suggestion on the coordinator talk page a few weeks back this working group idea may never have been suggested. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I hope that it helps to improve the situation. --
  W…
  05:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum, this list is still using the old format and might also need a split due to length as proposed on the talk page as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done, have replied there --
  W…
  08:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You created new entries for Proton-K and Proton-M. Why? Not much of a difference, too much repeating. I suggest combining all Proton variations in the main Proton article. Also, there is already a list of Proton launches, so I suggest removing the similar list altogether from the Proton article. If you agree I can do the work, I just don't want to "be bold" only to find you revert all my changes again. Mikus (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I feel there is a sufficient difference to support separate articles for each variant, given the similar coverage of other families of rockets. Discussion at WPRocketry a while back found that it was acceptable to have articles on both families and subvariants, which is the case here, and is why these articles were created. One of the problems with not having separate articles for variants, particularly in cases where some variants are still active but others are retired, is that the out-of-service variants are completely smothered by recentism. The Soyuz article was a complete mess until I split it. I would, however, support the removal of the launch list from the main article as it is obsolete. --
  W…
  18:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • On contrary, I think the difference is not that huge: avionics, engines, carbon fiber -- less than dozen of notable items. But entry sections and history and other stuff is the same. And the launch list includes all variants. Similarly, I would prefer only one article on all Soyuz variants, again to have just one proper full intro, history and technical details section. I am Russian, but I don't find spreading all this bits and pieces about pretty much the same Russian rocket helpful, neither in terms of readability, nor in terms of readers' appreciation ("It is the same rocket again? Do they just come with a new name for every launch? Can they create something new for a change?"). For R7 and derivatives I would keep R7 with more info about military application, one combined article for Voskhod/Vostok, one combined article for Soyuz/Molniya/Soyuz-2 and the article on R7 rocket family with links to R7, Voskhod/Vostok and Soyuz. Still too many for my taste. Please think about it one more time. Oh, and I really HATE infoboxes. The same info can be put right in the article, it is more readable, and there are no browser/CSS problems. I suggest removing long infoboxes in favor of direct info in the article. Mikus (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I still disagree about merging. I'll try and expand out the Proton articles a bit over the next few weeks to prove there are more differences, what you are basically proposing is the complete abolition of almost all subvariant articles, which I have many arguments against, and which I believe will simply result in the same mess we had before I started splitting them. Where do you propose drawing the line between variants which warrant articles, and those that don't? In addition to this, I think that my argument regarding recentism is still valid. I agree that the R-7 article does need more information about military applications, but this should not be added at the expense of the articles that already contain that information. As for infoboxes, they are an established part of Wikipedia article style, so I'm afraid they're probably going to have to stay. Maybe the rocket infobox is starting to get a bit too long, but I'm yet to see a good way of presenting it in articles. The only thing that I think is worse than the lists of specifications that were used for this before the infobox was introduced is the table of specifications used in articles regarding SpaceX rockets. If you can propose a better alternative, then I would suggest you do so at
      W…
      20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at what

Also, someone created Mir EO-24. Are we going to have articles on the expeditions to Mir as well (this is the only one currently, and there is no infrastructure set up to support these if we are keeping them). -MBK₀₀₄ 22:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any objections to Alinor's changes per se, however I feel that they should have been discussed. Its a fait accompli now though, so I would suggest leaving it be, unless you have any strong objections to their inclusion. I've added a {{
  W…
  08:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I want your help with articles on all the past Director Generals of ESA. There are no articles on Roy Gibson and other prominent historical figures in ESA on wiki. I have created the Roy Gibson article. Can you help me finishing the complete list of Director Generals and the article Director General of the European Space Agency ?? Regards --Johnxxx9 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've done the list for you. I don't write biographical articles as a matter of principle, but I will help out with the other aspects. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know, and I'll try to help (although I'm a little busy compiling a complete list of Thor launches at the moment). --
  W…
  15:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, and I'm a little concerned that your use of the image of Gibson doesn't qualify as fair use. Do you know if he's still alive or not? --
  W…
  15:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't no if he is alive. Doesn't ESA photos and pictures come with Creative Commons licenses ? I couldn't find any photos of photos or portraits of Roy Gibson or any other following Director Generals' in the public domain. Hence I thought that Non-free media license would be justified.--Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know about licences, but according to
      W…
      16:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make it clear that the naming dispute was about the module, and that naming the treadmill was the compromise made to end that dispute. It seems to switch between discussing the module and treadmill without making it clear that it is doing so. --

W…

08:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but... I don't necessarily need to know (although I certainly appreciate the explaination). I may have done a lot to split the info out and re-create the page, but I don't have any aspirations to own it or anything. More importantly, I see this behavior of tagging without any explaination all over the place, and to be honest I think that it's just bad behavior. It's not specifically you... there's sort of a pattern that has developed in this respect over the years, if you see what I'm saying.
— V = I * R (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to come back to the fact that a performance of 20 t to LEO is listed for Ariane 5 ECA. I still think this is wrong. I went to the Ariane 5 User's Manual, Issue 5, Performances section, and it is written (page 2-9) " Ariane 5 equipped with a storable propellant upper stage in the ES version can serve the International Space Station with the Automated Transfer Vehicle, on a Low Earth Circular orbit:

• altitude range between 200 and 400 km
• inclination = 51.6 deg

The performance varies between 19 and 21 t, depending on the specific mission." So it is very clear for me that only ES is addressed, and there is no statement in the User's Manual about an ECA performance in LEO, therefore, the figure of the table is unsourced. ECA cannot do that due to lack of reignition capability of the upper stage (unability to raise perigee). Hektor (talk) 08:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Have replied there. --
  W…
  10:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Russians sources are claiming that the satellite ended up in the ocean. [5] And is it a partial launch failure? Isn't the failure due to the late second stage ignition? Regards. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reports keep changing. First it was reported to have been successful, then it was reported that it reached an incorrect orbit but was still usable, then that it was in the wrong orbit and would be unusable, and not there are reports that it has completely failed to orbit. I'm going to wait a while before I do anything else (although I will post a note on
  W…
  14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Rus-M is powered by 3 RD-180 engines, not a cluster but 3 different engines. Isn't this considered as 2 boosters + 1 core stage all with ground ignition muck like Delta-IV Heavy and Falcon-9 Heavy ? [6] Now the issue is should I include the 2 RD-180s in the first stage with the existent one or consider them as boosters. Thank you! --Johnxxx9 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• My understanding is that it separates as one unit (ie. the two outboards remain attached to the "core" stage until it separates, rather than falling away before core depletion like on Delta IV, Falcon 9, etc), so it is all one stage. --
  W…
  15:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you put the description of the failure in the article instead? That tag has to go as soon as possible. — Jan Hofmann (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is (or at least should be) in the article as well. The tags are used to keep track of rapidly moving events. It will probably be removed in a day or so. --

W…

09:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Long March 5 a launch vehicle family rather than a single launcher? So, can you add (rocket family) to the article ? I think the present article presents the view of a single heavy launcher. Regards. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is a family, but no disambiguation should be added as none is required. Until an individual variant called the "Long March 5" appears, it should remain where it is per
  W…
  19:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, WDGraham. You have new messages at Denelson83's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just saw this as well: [7] -MBK₀₀₄ 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

With that new information, you've just rendered all of the predicted launch dates for the Block IIF satellites in

--  Denelson83  22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Its not a case of it being unreliable, it's just out of date. I've updated the GPS list with the current scheduled launch dates for the first five satellites. I don't have anything at all after that. --

W…

08:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. You should be able to move pages yourself, using the "move" button at the top of the page. I'll RFD the old title. --
  W…
  15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, WDGraham. You have new messages at Template talk:Launching/GPS.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 05:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

About a month later, I responded to

• Have replied there. --
  W…
  08:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you belive any of the space agencies that have no info need to have info? Mickman1234 (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please could you be more specific. --
  W…
  11:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What i mean is that the ones that are colored red, the links to the page, do u think they need info Mickman1234 (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Probably. It should be handled on a case-by-case basis. --
  W…
  07:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• • No problem. I've made a few changes to it to improve its appearance. It is very short, so I would suggest that you add more content to it. --
    W…
    08:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

cool, i did attempt to do something right :) for the first time i think Mickman1234 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

theres a picture of robort borrifice but i do not know how to upload it? Mickman1234 (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Where did you find it, and who took it. --
  W…
  07:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am planning to create a new template to list all the different cryogenic engines (or the whole bunch of liquid-fueled rocket engines if too specific). On what basis should the classification be done ? Should engines be classified as what countries they are from or their combustion cycle? Is just cryogenic engines too specific or should we create a template listing all liquid-fueled rocket engines ? Your valuable insights are appreciated! Regards. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest listing all rocket engines, and then if it gets too long we can split it. I would also recommend using the word "propellent" or "fuel" rather than "fuel(l)ed", to avoid issues with different dialects of English. I would suggest splitting it by fuel types, and then combinations for the more common ones. I have created a brief example
  W…
  20:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Are SRBs really required ? The only example that can be placed in the template is the space Shuttle solid boosters. And would 'solid engines' be the proper word as we always address solid rockets as SRBs which includes the entire stage and not only the engine. I agree with all other aspects of the template. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Shuttle SRBs should not be included, but I think engines such as Star and Orbus variants should be (although there is some lack of clarity between stage and engine naming in these cases). --
      W…
      20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Will it be better if we replace LOX/LH2, LOX/RP-1 and UDMH/N2O4 with Cryogenic, Semi-Cryogenic and Hypergolic ? I tried finding some 'solid engines' but there are only stages. Eg. Castor (rocket stage). And if we can have these then Shuttle boosters also can be placed. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
        • How about this. As for the solids, I would exclude Castor as well. Look for instances where the stage and the motor have different names (Star motors used in PAM, Orbus in IUS and TOS, etc), and solid apogee motors. --
          W…
          20:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
          • It's good. I'll try and fill it up. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Is RP-1 same as kerosene ?--Johnxxx9 (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• ←Yes. --
  W…
  21:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Which is the right place for this: RD-701 ?? --Johnxxx9 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Almost done! Have a
      look. --Johnxxx9 (talk
      ) 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks good. There are probably a few that we've missed, so I'll have a look through later, and I'll try to do some of the solids as well. --
        W…
        08:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Shall I create a new article on UA1200 family of solid engines (or stages) used on the Titan family boosters ? It's from Astronautix. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not. They are boosters not engines, though, so don't include them in the template. --
    W…
    15:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that Progress M-13 and Progress M-15 are blue, but Progress M-14 is not. Forgot one? -MBK₀₀₄ 03:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• M-14 was one of two VDU delivery flights. I'm saving them for later. --
  W…
  05:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• And I'll be putting M-17 in my userspace for now, as I want to get a book to check a few things. (per
  W…
  08:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just checking... I completely forgot about the first VDU flight, those two could be GA candidates if there is enough info available. -MBK₀₀₄ 08:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You indicated during the proposal phase that you may be interest in a black project working group, this message is being left to inform you that the group has been officially created, and is located

• I have joined. Thanks. --
  W…
  06:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have just updated the 2009 in spaceflight article which it seems you have updated a lot. Could you have a look? I also notice that there are a lot of august expected launches - well sept is here and they have not been launched yet so I wonder if you would update that. regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.157 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. --

/P…

22:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, kudos for comprehensive articles that youve worked on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.60.157 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, you need to end talk page posts with --~~~~ to sign them. I would also suggest that you

/P…

06:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The mission patch for HTV-1 was posted on NSF. [8]. Is non-free logo use rationale applicable to that ? If it is we can get it into the HTV-1 article. Regards. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Someone else has already done it. --
  /P…
  18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at different ISS-cargo flights like ATV-1(Juilius Verne), HTV-1, Progress M-67 et etc etc and was surprised to see that the mission info box layout is different for each of these vehicles while all having the common mission of re-supplying ISS. If we can have a common info-box layout for all manned missions, why can' there be a common info-box for re-supply missions (not just for the ISS). I would suggest a common infobox layout for all re-supply missions. Regards. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• They all use
  /P…
  18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw this: [9], but I imagine that since I've seen my watchlist light up due to her tagging, I'm guessing that 08 and 07 and any future leads you write will become problems as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've split it into sections, and I'll do the other ones as well. --
  W…
  06:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've replaced your drawings (which are quite good by the way!) of the Long March 2F, Long March 3A, Long March 3B Long March 3C with real photographs. Let me know what you think. I think it looks quite nice this way. Just a general observation: the Chinese rocket articles really need some work to get them up to standard. Poliphile (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• No problem with that, just make sure the photos are freely-licenced. And I know the articles need work, the ones I wrote were just short stubs to fill gaps in the series. --
  W…
  07:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Can you add Long March-5 family to the list of your pending drawings. It would also help if you could reveal the software you use for those images. Is it Photoshop ?? Anyway, thr CZ-5 drawings are at Astronautix. [10]. Regards. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do, although I'll need to find other sources as well. I use
    W…
    16:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any sub-orbital missions that went orbital on accident? Mickman1234 (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• One, the second test flight of the
  W…
  15:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much and i was wondering are they going to update the spaceflight of 2012? Mickman1234 (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• When there's enough to put in it. --
  W… 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Ok that sounds about right :) Mickman1234 (talk
  ) 06:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ITN for HTV-1

On 10 September 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article HTV-1, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have some common sections in launch vehicle articles like History/Development, Vehicle Description, Variants and Launch History in the respective order. Many articles have sections like 'stage info', 'components' for 'vehicle Description'. There should be a basis for rocket articles and the sections I have listed above represents some of the most basic requirements of these articles. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest that you make a proposal on
  W…
  17:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The

Good point. Either we should create a separate column (probably the best way?) or standardize where exactly the ref should go in.

Offliner (talk

) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How about splitting the outcome field horizontally into "Launch Outcome" and "Flight Outcome", or similar. I don't think there's space for as new column, and besides I have grown to hate putting references at the ends of rows with no indication of which information they are intended to relate to. An alternative could be stating "Successful launch" in the outcome field, above "operational". This could be reduced to just a generic "Successful" once the spacecraft successfully completes its mission, or left as "Successful launch<br/>Spacecraft failure", if that is the case. Which would you prefer? --

/P…

18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the second one. 'Launch Outcome' and 'Flight outcome' sound very similar and could be confusing. So, the second one would be a better choice. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm going to move this discussion to
  /P…
  09:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also

Theres also a picture of Robert Borrofice, can it be added? Mickman1234 (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The

talk

) 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello

im just wondering whats new about equadors space program and spaceflight in 2012 :) Mickman1234 (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Fox Sports en Latinoamérica Science Power Platform Disdrometer Cupola (ISS) Cablevision (Canada) Heliocentric orbit Russian Research Module CanalSat F-type asteroid 20th Century Fox Animation Advanced Composition Explorer Italian Space Agency Soyuz TM-16 News International United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs Fox Movie Channel Mediacom T-type asteroid Fox Television Studios

Cleanup Bresnan Communications Titan (rocket family) Apollo-Soyuz Test Project Merge Ion thruster TransACT Brevard County, Florida Add Sources Fox Searchlight Pictures KUTP Astro (satellite TV) Wikify Mercury-Atlas 5 James Van Allen Māori Television Expand KSTU WGHP WBRC

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the

Operation Great War Centennial

, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up

talk

) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The

talk

) 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment on wake-up calls in space shuttle articles

There was a request for comment made at

WikiProject:Human Spaceflight, on the inclusion of a table containing the wake up calls. If you get a minute and could comment on what you think, that would be great. Thanks!--NavyBlue84

14:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of

talk

) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The

talk

) 18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on Soyuz statistics and refs needed

I could use an outside informed opinon. C1010 (talk · contribs) has been adding ESA sources to Soyuz (rocket family) and Soyuz (spacecraft) that present inaccurate information and when questioned on it he has been defensive and said since ESA is a reliable pubished source I have no basis for revering the edits because their content is factually wrong. He claims that the Soyuz vehicle has flown 1700+ times instead of all R-7 based vehicles. The relevant two discussions are: User_talk:MBK004#Please_follow_Wikipedia_rules.2C_don.27t_invent_your_own and User talk:C1010#Bad refs. Thanks, -MBK₀₀₄ 22:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Year-end housecleaning

You might have noticed that things haven't ran as smoothly in your break, so welcome back! I've been getting started on some of the year-end updating, and from the looks of it, so have you. I just noticed when updating

List of R-7 launches (2005-2009) that it is time for new lists for these types of lists (R-7, Atlas, Thor/Delta) and in looking the Ariane and Proton lists should probably be split. -MBK₀₀₄

09:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've cleaned out the 2009 and 2010 in spaceflight lists, and updated the lead of 2009 ready for it being selected article on the Spaceflight Portal in a couple of weeks (which will make a welcome change from having no selected article). I'll sort out the Thor and Atlas lists now, and then I'll have a look at the R-7 list (I'll have to add a few launches before I split it, but it should be possible). I'll propose splits of the Ariane and Proton lists, and sort them out in a week if there are no objections. --
  W…
  09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Done --
  W…
  12:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to make the new Delta IV 2010-2019 page as neat and one-lined as the Atlas page? I have attempted to clean it up and add new dates that were just published for NASA missions.--CapeCanaveral321 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've put {{
  W…
  21:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

KSLV-1

Official KARI website, http://www.kari.re.kr/ do use "Korea Space Launch Vehicle-I" name. The two references about "Naro-1", one claim rocket "also called" and another one talking Korean name('나로 ???) without mentioning "Naro-1". Renamed article to match English name officially used by KARI. Vitall (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reverted, reply on
  W…
  18:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)