Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2007 Reorganisation

This proposal reduces 17 projects to just 6

Revised structure

• WikiProject Space
  • WikiProject Astronomy
    • Astronomy Collaboration of the Week
    • Astronomical objects task force
    • Constellations task force
  • WikiProject Solar System
    • Lunar task force
    • Mars task force
  • WikiProject Space exploration
    • Timeline task force
    • WikiProject Human Spaceflight
      • Astronaut task force
    • WikiProject Rocketry
    • Spaceflight Collaboration of the Week

Structure

This is just an inital proposal, please discuss changes and improvements here. --GW_Simulations

Could you explain what you mean by "operating as part of...", "sub-topic of " and "child project". I don't understand how this will be implemented in practice. Will to main topic and sub topic still act as independent project? or will the main project have multiple talk pages? Lunokhod 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do one project, space, and then have the sub project be "task forces"? I personally think that Space exploration and astronomy should possibly be the only two sub-projects. Wikiprojects work better once a critical mass of people is reached. Having everyone in one spot would help that. -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What practical differences (both in the short and long term) would having task forces rather than wikiprojects make? Would it not be better to merge wikiprojects and centralise their discussion, to get more people joining in with each discussion? How would the portals fit into this proposed structure? Mike Peel 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally happy with the above proposals. My only problems are (1) I don't think it is a good idea to use words like "task force." I think that we should leave the project names as is; if we have an "organigram" like above, the relationship between the projects will be obvious. (2) I think that constellations should be merged into one of the astronomy projects; this project appears to be near the end of its life. (3) I still think that astronomy and astronomical objects should be merged. The creation of Solar system will lighten the load on the merged project. Lunokhod 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that "task force" does not seem to mean anything. At the moment, these WikiProjects serve as discussion forums. It would be better to merge projects together so that the discussions all take place in one location. I see no reason to have multiple subprojects or task forces or whatever. I would suggest having two projects: one for astronomy, and one for spaceflight. Dr. Submillimeter 23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is probably best to start by merging the smallest and inactive projects into the bigger ones. The projects will work if they have achieved a critical mass, and if they don't, we can merge these into the parent projects. I think if we go slowly over the next month or two, picking off one project per week, that things will self-organize. I suggest by starting with constellations and timeline. Lunokhod 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Dr. Submm and Lunokhod. I gave notice a while back on the WP Constellations talk page about my intention to merge it into WP Astronomical Objects. As noone has objected, I have now carried out that merger. Mike Peel 19:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support having fewer projects and merging the inactive projects into the active ones incrementally. I do note that the astronomical objects project has by far the greatest number of members, and therefore would recommend that it survive with perhaps a rename to the more general astronomy and merge the current astronomy project over to it in the interest of the least disruption to existing members and discussion threads. WilliamKF 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could make an infobox that shows the hierachical relationship of these projects? Lunokhod 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a copy of the current list (above), and have indented and rearranged things to show a rough hierarchical interproject list; see User:Mike Peel/Astronomy projects. I'm sadly constrained to 2D, though, so I can't show the relationships between (e.g.) Martian Geography and Mars Spacecraft. Mike Peel 23:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! Not the 2D constraints, the list. You may overcome the 2D constraint by numbering the items in an extra column, and add yet another column with a comment, say "relates to 4". We humanoids can parse that. Rursus 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why by the way, is constellations task force crossed over? Rursus 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the constellations wikiproject is not more. Mike Peel 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK. But I'll work with constellations, and if anyone would be interested in such a task force, he/she will be welcome to talk to me, otherwise I'll just do what I do... Rursus 13:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I think that Astronomical objects is so active that it shall be in a separate wikiproject. While astronomy may take care of constellations, observations and telescopes, astronomy maths and physics, astronomy history and the like, astronomical objects draws an immense amount of band width, and as I believe, also the vast number of solar system objects. Astronomical objects for stars and deep sky, solar system for planets (including exoplanets IMHO). Rursus 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propositio Rursi

[Proposition image archived here: User:Rursus/Proprs] Rursus 11:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting my own proposal: it's easy to forget that the encyclopedia users need a superficial overview over the vast myriad of topics before delving deep into the sciences, like we have done a long time ago – therefore I believe it's of outmost importance that we have coordinating WikiProjects like Space Wikiproject even if it's area of responsibility would seem unclear. Rursus 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Solar System studies should be a subset of "astronomy". In essence, while this was probably the case before the space race, when solar system studies were based primarily on observational techniques, today, solar system studies have evolved more towards geology, atmospheres, geophysics, hydrology, geochemistry, isotopes, etc.; i.e., the understanding of how a specific planet evolves with time through internal and external forces. Before extrasolar planets were discovered, I'd say "planetary scientists", and "astrophysics" worked almost in isolation. Nevertheless, today people are starting to talk about solar system formation in the context of these newly discovered planetary systems, so maybe this is no longer true. While both disciplines use "remote sensing", in practice, these methods are not that similar. Just my opinion. Lunokhod 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Mostly no. Planetary science is a part of astronomy. It uses a set of scientific methods and concepts shared by the non-planet-system astronomers, like magnitude (visual/absolute), telescopes, interferometry (?), spectra, long time exposures, newtonian celestial mechanics... During the first space age (which has not yet ended) the planets were reachable by space crafts, while the stars weren't. This, and a couple of specific defects in the human species creating cotteries and fight for monetary resources, created the temporary split between planetary science and all other astronomy. May I also remind of Sun (a decidedly astronomical object in all conceivable meanings) and its huge influence on the chemical constitution of planets in different solar system zones. Rursus 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with Lunokhod here.. (as i said below) it is natural to separate things in the Solar system from things not in the Solar system, in the same way it is natural to separate things on Earth from those not on Earth. Mlm42 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm willing to retreat on this. I'll archive the proposal and make a new. L8R. Rursus 11:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the proposal in the orange box. I'd be happy with that rather than my proposal. --GW_Simulations

OK, it's still in User:Rursus/Proprs (nickname the orange one), and I prefer it for the next one (Propositio Rursi II – the green one):

{{User:Rursus/Proprs new}}

The disadvantages of this one is that the responsibility of Wikiproject Space will be too extensive, unless the solar system is willing to abstain from the concepts of telescopes, magnitude and spectra to Wikiproject Astronomy only. Collaboration of the week would be duplicate. Since I'm inclined towards the Astronomical Objects only, that would be OK by me – but regarding terms of science: solar system science is astronomy, regarding computer science (I'm an advanced programmer): natural taxonomies are preferrable before unnatural ("natural" referring to natural language English). Rursus 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with

Sputnik it's also been an increasing element in geo-political / military strategy. At present it's as much part of space travel as of astronomy and in another 50 years it may also be part of economics and engineering. I favour a simple structure for managing space-related topics, but it will always be necessary to be aware of lateral links, and to revise formal organisational structures every few years.Philcha 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing's happening! Now I can't wait anymore! The mess must be cleaned up, and even though I prefer my proposal, It is better that something is happening, than that my proposal wins. Hereby I withdraw all my own proposals in favor for the current Revised structure. Iff one of my own proposals is sufficiently better than the Revised structure, natural evolution of peoples activities here will successively change the structure towards that proposals in some future. It's important to go on from here, but this or that structure is not that important, IMHO. Are we ready to decide? Rursus 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space missions

I think that Space missions should be kept as a task force under Human Spaceflight. There are over 100

I'm not clear on what the distinction between "Space missions" and "Human spaceflight" would be? any human spaceflight has occurred as a "Space mission", as far as i know.. but perhaps there would be demand for an Apollo task force, or Space Shuttle task force? Mlm42 10:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "distinction" is that there is a redundant project. We have two projects doing the same thing, so I am proposing that the one with the least ambigous name is kept. Task forces could be set up under the main project to handle different programmes. --GW_Simulations

Talk 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm, the intention is right – constellation works is not an independent interest, it should belong somewhere, but I think it would be more appropriate to put the Constellations task force near Astronomical Objects, not Astronomy unless some other Space group expresses a very deep interest in constellations (Astrology uncounted for, but that's a matter of outgroup coexistence). Rursus 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make myself clear: what I say contradict the above proposal to run Astronomical objects as a task force under Astronomy. So I hereby suggest that Astronomical objects is KEPT, since it is active and has a lot of members, its area of responsibility being interstellar space and beyond. I also think that Constellation task force should be NEARBY, for example operating under Astronomical Objects. Rursus 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is WikiProject Space necessary?

(Rursus moved this discussion here because he thought that it belonged to here. Rursus 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know. There is a space portal, but this project seems to be redundant with all of the other subtopics, such as solar system, astronomy, and space exploration. Lunokhod 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A catch-all term like space that includes astronomy, space exploration and even aviation is way too broad to organize work on articles. Perhaps the Space wikiproject could be a place to describe the results of the reorganization that is being planned here. Sort of a wikiproject disambig to direct editors to the subtopic they are interested in. I'm still not clear on the scope of some of the wikiprojects that are listed above. The Solar System project seems to only include major objects (26 are listed in the assessment box) but there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of asteroids in the Astronomical Objects project. Also, we should probably update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science as we go along (which still lists constellations.) --mikeu 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably a good idea to have a Space WikiProject, simply to coordinate all of the Space wikiprojects. It isn't clear to a new editor who is working on what, so a general Space WikiProject could point them in the right direction. I think those who are interested in things in Space exploration are likely to also be interested in some topics in Astronomy, and vice versa. Mlm42 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the space wikiproject has been useful as a forum for this reorganization. However, if each wikiproject has the "space wikiproject navigation template" on its main page, is there really much more of a need for coordination? I don't know the answer. I just think that we should do everything possible in order to increase the trafic on those projects that will continue to exist.

I see your point. IMHO, the fact that we ended up with so many overlaping projects is a sign that something is not working. New editors are looking for a project that matches their interests, and not finding an exact match they create a new project. Both the old nav box and WP:Space have been around since Aug. and yet more projects have been created since then. We're not going to get traffic on the remaining projects if people keep creating new ones.--mikeu 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between Space and Astronomy is not that clear, personally I'm generally not at all interested in manned nor unmanned space missions unless they're directed towards solar system explorations and beyond. Telecommunication satellites and space shuttle missions don't bother me a smack – I'm in it for the astronomy, nothing else. If China puts up a taikonaut, it seems to me like some national politics spectacle that has no scientific purpose.

So I adher to the standing point that Space is needed for coordination between Space missions and Astronomy Science. Rursus 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all of the articles tagged by the

I've removed the "Solar system" class, simply by uncategorizing the categories. 131.111.24.187 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it would be rational to transfer all solar system (except Sun) and planetology items to

Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects takes care of stars and deep sky. Proplyd and star cribs could be shared. Rursus 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If there was a need, we could create a "sun task force" of solar system; though I am more for consolidation than proliferation... Lunokhod 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, let just

Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System share the responsibility. Maybe we shouldn't be too territorial? Rursus 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it is natural to separate objects in the solar system from objects not in the solar system.. in the same way it is natural to separate objects on Earth and those not on Earth. But at the same time, I don't see a point of WikiProjects being territorial over the overlapping articles. So I'm in favour of the three Astronomy, Solar System, and Space exploration as the main WikiProjects. Mlm42 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for moving the planets, asteroids and comets from astronomical objects to the solar system project. The point I was making above is that starting a new assessment of article quality is a duplication of effort.--mikeu 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving is OK by me, I'm going to visit both projects anyway. Rursus 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears rather inactive, with one edit since July last year (9 months). This also looks like a candidate for "reshuffling". Any ideas about what to do with this? MER-C 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could rename it "Space Collaboration of the Month". In essence, space is the coordinating project, and one per week does not seem realistic to me. Lunokhod 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a useful idea. If we drop the Spaceflight contribution as well, and just run one. I'll support te propsal. --GW_Simulations

Talk 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I think we should have two collaborations: a Space missions project, which could get the old Shuttle pages up to standard, and an astronomy collaboration. The astronomy could be for the month, but, since not as much work would be needed, the space missions project need only last a fortninght. Thoughts? --Miguel Cervantes 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to establish a common database for all space-related wikiprojects to share templates in areas where they overlap. This would provide a centralised area for such resources and discussion about them, therby improving the mantainance and upkeep of these templates, and reducing the risk of duplication (I am aware of at least two infoboxes for astronauts that currently exist, and there used to be three for rockets). Also, could/should all userboxes be moved into project or userspace. --GW_Simulations

That would be an idea quite in my taste. As discussions are going, the "root" project is to be WikiProject Space, and it would be natural to "place" all templates in Space. Which means: the templates are maintained under the roof of WikiProject Space, the documentation and links to those templates are to be reached from WikiProject Space. Rursus 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started doing something like this. See Category:Astronomical templates and subcategories, to which I've added as many astronomy-related templates that I can find. If you know of any others, please add them. Mike Peel 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know about at least the constellation nav boxes. Just a second! Rursus 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, they were already there. I think some more explicit documentation is needed, like

Template:WikiProject_Space/Navigation_boxes but regarding other templates. Rursus 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I just put astronomical templates as a subcategor ofCategory:WikiProject_Space. I agree that they could be better organized. Lunokhod 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good initiative. Now, the page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates/Infoboxes for the counterparting documentation. Rursus 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

D*rn!! I made it wrongly!! Aourrrgh!! User:Rursus/Rages Fixup! GGGhrasshoorrrh! Rursus 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Pardon for all inconveniences! Rursus 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to make sure that the documentation for the templates goes either on the template page, or a subpage of the template (transcluded both in the template and this new documentation page). I'd prefer to avoid having duplicate documentation for the different templates - it just complicates matters unnecessarily. Mike Peel 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By transclusion, maybe? See {{

Template:navconstel}} for example. Rursus 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There seems to be a standard way of doing transclusion of template documentation: see

Template:ArticleHistory for an example of it in use. Using that and transcluding it both on the template page and this guide page would seem to me to be the best way to do things. Mike Peel 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, but that method works only if there's one documentation per template, and I'm having one documentation for four templates. My method seems to be similar, but I may be able to adapt those techniques to the methods used in our templates. The standard seems to be that Template:Gonk is having documentation in Template:Gonk/doc. Rursus 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm!! Somebody seems to have applied the standard method while I was away. Now, the consequence is that the [edit] links doesn't work! Revert please! Rursus 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Øh! Pardon my screaming! It wasn't one of us, I protested on his user page. Rursus 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He fixed it. Rursus 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles on private space exploration within the scope of the WikiProject? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. All space-related topics are (or at least should be). --GW_Simulations

Talk 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

There are a number of topics which would more suitably be categorized as "Space commercialization" as opposed to "Space exploration." Almost by definition, many of the private space efforts are among those, i.e. they are operated with little government funding and hope to be commercially successful. The biggest segment of "space commercialization" right now is surely satellite telecommunication. Personally, I would like to see WikiProject Space reorganized along tripartite lines: Astronomy, Exploration, and Use, where "Use" could be further subdivided into commercial, military, and scientific uses. Sdsds 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The portal for WikiProject Space (

• Portal:Space
  (under construction)
• Portal:Astronomy
  • Portal:Solar System
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals
      )
    • Portal:Mars
• Portal:Space exploration
• Portal:Spaceflight
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals
  ?!)

Revized Structure

• Portal:Space
  (maintained by all WikiProjects as "portal of portals")
  • Portal:Astronomy (maintained by Astronomy WikiProject)
  • Portal:Solar System (maintained by Solar System WikiProject)
    • Portal:Sun
      (coverage too small and no related taskforce/WikiProject)
    • Portal:Mars (maintained by Solar System WikiProject, Mars taskforce)
    • Portal:Moon (added for Solar System WikiProject, Moon taskforce)
  • Portal:Space exploration
    (maintained by Space exploration WikiProject)
    • Portal:Spaceflight → Portal:Human spaceflight (maintained by Human spaceflight WikiProject) (kept as-is)
    • Portal:Rocketry (added for Rocketry WikiProject)

We should stop linking to Portal:Physics (unless there's an astrophysics one?), Portal:Aviation (not related to the space projects at all), and Portal:Astrology (a pseudoscience), which are not maintained by Space-related WikiProjects. The reorganized portals should be plenty to link to. If needed, we can start a portals taskforce off of WikiProject Space to make sure all of the portals are maintained and done well (my experience with portals is primarily the featured portal candidate Portal:Solar System so I can help there). I think portals cannot remain neglected as they are a good way to recruit people to WikiProjects and to show the efforts of the WikiProjects as well. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with most, but I regard solar system as part of astronomy. This isn't an important point to me however, If they're treated apart, the only trouble will be that I'm going to be a member of both of them. Said: Rursus 12:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Portal:Solar System is a subportal of Portal:Space mostly to match the WikiProject organization and to prevent a confusing hierarchy of portals (Portal:Mars and Portal:Moon would be subsubportals if Portal:Solar System remained a subportal of Portal:Astronomy, and that would get confusing). — Pious7 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a good argument: the structures shall be isomorphous to be easily recognizable/orientable for mayhap future members. Said: Rursus 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Space

When reading again: you speak about a portal of portals. If you start it, I'm in! (Besides I'm already a member of WikiProject Space, and if I'm lying by forgetfulness, then soon will be). Said: Rursus 12:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would probably work out better in traditional format (not tabbed) and built from the ground up. How does one get inactive portals deleted? And what approach would we do - take sections from various portals or have it done more traditionally? We might even need to make a taskforce under WikiProject space to work on portals. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. MER-C 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made an example of how it could work on one tab, but I'm not sure if tabs would work and if they do work, they'd have to be redone from the beginning. It'd probably be more work to reformat the existing out-of-date and under-construction portal than to recreate it from deletion. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the example "Things you can do" tab! I do have a simmering pet peeve, though: it's about the reorganization into "sub-portals". Specifically, if one of the top-level sub-portals is "space exploration", then there isn't really any logical place for "spaceflight", which is about *all* uses of space, not just exploration. From my perspective, "space exploration" is just one of the things "spaceflight" is used for. (OK, I admit that's an overstatement, but I hope it gets the point across. Commercial uses of space aren't exploration!) So of course I want "spaceflight" to be the top-level sub-portal of the Space portal that includes "space exploration", "rocketry" and "human spaceflight" as sub-sub-portals.... (Sdsds - Talk) 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be for the portals to mirror the reorganization of the Space-related WikiProjects. Perhaps your suggestion should apply to the reorganized WikiProject layout as well? — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 01:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that space flight isn't the same thing as space exploration actually, foremost because space is also explored from the surface of Earth. As regards to what is not astronomy and still space exploration, aurora may be a reasonable example. Disregarding non-science, such as telecom satellites, non-astronomical science is often performed in space, such as crystallizations requiring nongravity, and verifying the Casimir effect. Let's say we instead rename space exploration to Portal:Space science or something similar to widen the concept of space with regards to science?? Said: Rursus 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Space science" is a bit too general, though, and could probably even include Portal:Astronomy under it. — Pious7 23:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the question directly at #Subportal or not? so we can hopefully get a consensus. — Pious7 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Spaceflight

I would be inclined to oppose the move from

The problem with that is that there's no WikiProject Spaceflight to correspond with Portal:Spaceflight. Without a corresponding WikiProject, upkeep usually depends on one person (which is disadvantageous) and there isn't a good To Do. — Pious7 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem of a Portal without an exactly matching Project can be overcome. Specifically, the Spaceflight Portal as not one but two mechanisms for keeping a To Do list, all without the aid of a Project. (If you can think of work for the Portal, feel free to add entries to either Portal:Spaceflight/Things you can do or Portal talk:Spaceflight/to do. Of course someone should probably add the entry: "Merge the Todo lists!" ;-) (Sdsds - Talk) 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then the question remains: Why is it not a WikiProject? I think that if the people working on the portal were to start one to match the portal, some of the minor WikiProjects that make the Space Exploration subprojects a mess could be merged into it. It would be well organized, have a good portal, and there'd be no need for a separate Rocketry WikiProject or portal. — Pious7 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the "why" question. But the existence of a Project page doesn't automatically mean there is support for it. Maybe the reason is because a Project page would require upkeep. Could a WikiProject Space "task force" maintain the Spaceflight Portal? (Sdsds - Talk) 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved to #Portal Taskforce to encourage discussion. — Pious7 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two to do lists both serve different functions -

Talk 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops. My bad. Sorry! (Sdsds - Talk) 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this part of my proposal. This portal shouldn't be renamed and a Space taskforce on portals might help for portals that don't coincide with a WikiProject or taskforce. — Pious7 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subportal or not?

One last issue of the portal was raised in the

Portal:Space exploration. — Pious7 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Portal:Sun

Resolved

 – The portal has been deleted. — Pious7 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sun. MER-C 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping move the reorganization along. If the portal is somehow kept, I think that there should be a taskforce under the Solar System WikiProject to handle Sun-related articles and this portal, but I do think that it neither has sufficient interest nor enough articles for a taskforce and/or portal... — Pious7 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Rocketry

Resolved

 – I withdraw my proposal for a Portal:Rocketry, it appears to be redundant with Portal:Spaceflight.

Per the discussion on #Portal:Spaceflight, the consensus seems to be to keep it as-is. Would it then be easier to drop this part of the proposal and have rocketry be part of Portal:Spaceflight's coverage? — Pious7 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal Taskforce

Moved from #Portal:Spaceflight discussion.

Good idea. I think that a taskforce under the coordinating WikiProject Space might be useful in maintaining all Space-related subportals (with the help of any related WikiProjects) and

Portal:Space. This would keep things organized, somewhat standard, and give WikiProject Space another use. This could get all Space portals to featured status (it's not that hard - I got my first portal, Portal:Solar System, featured). Working on a portal requires skill in portal design, not specific knowledge of the Space subtopic, so putting the actual design element to a portal taskforce would probably be more efficient. — Pious7 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Portal:Moon

The last major change is on the creation of Portal:Moon. This is rather simple: is there enough interest and material to create and maintain a portal for the Moon? — Pious7 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals

This will need to be updated to reflect the reorganization of Space-related portals. I think that the bottom three portals (Physics, Aviation, and Astrology) should stop being linked to altogether in favor of only showing the portals that are directly under the Space WikiProject, but this means that the structure of the page will have to change. — Pious7 19:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was
  WP:BOLD and removed the unrelated portals, if this is reverted or Portal:Moon is added, this will still need to be worked on. — Pious7 01:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Article Assessment Templates

Old discussion

here

.

I have seen {{WPSpace}} used on some articles. In addition, when tagging pages for the Solar System WikiProject I used it to merge all Space-related WikiProject templates when there were other Space WikiProjects already there to prevent clutter. Should we just merge all of the assessment talk page templates into {{WPSpace}} for uniformity, especially if there's going to be an overlap? — Pious7 18:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that people agreed to merge all of the assessments. I also do not think that merging assessments for articles that deal with astronomy with assessments for articles that deal with manned spaceflight is quite appropriate. In cases where multiple WikiProjects overlap, it would not hurt to have assessments from multiple WikiProjects anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like the template in areas where the scope covers many (3+). It's better than the alternative - a multi-WikiProject drop-down box that prevents people from seeing the assessment quality. As for the template itself, it keeps individual settings for WikiProjects with importance ratings, and that's all that should be different between projects. If an article is B-Class, it's B-Class, regardless of its WikiProjects. Often, e.g. on planets, almost all of the Space-related WikiProjects will cover at least some aspect of the article. — Pious7 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done here?

No edits have been made to this page since 2007-05-31. Are there any active plans, or can we call this one archived? MER-C 13:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss any further concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space. (sdsds - talk) 06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.