|This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.|
||This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
|| A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page. Click [show] to view it.
|This subject is featured in the Outline of aerospace, which is incomplete and needs further development.|
An update sectionEdit
It occurs to me that it would be really cool and useful to have a section just for posting updates on what you're working on and when you'd like a look-over. I recognize we have requests for assessments, but, for instance, @Hawkeye7:'s FAC for Manned Orbital Laboratory isn't even on there. I'd love to know what folks are doing and perhaps coordinate efforts.
Where would we put something like that? A sub-page of Discussion? A page of equal standing in Spaceflight's banner?
--Neopeius (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't see why we need a new page; we should probably reorganize the Assessment page to promote the Requests for assessment section more prominently. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- What have you been working on? :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think I have Apollo 7 about ready to go to FAC. Since we have the upcoming 50th anniversaries of Apollo 14 and 15 through FAC, there's time to go back and finish the earlier crewed missions (10 and 12) that are not yet through FAC before finishing 16 and 17 that don't have 50th anniversaries until 2022.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Apollo 7 is at FAC. Reviews welcome, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: Congratulations on your FAC! Looks like it's going smoothly. Let me know if you need any further help, but it looks like it's well in hand. --Neopeius (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I tried to add a reference to the VSS (Virgin Space Ship) prefix given to Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo spaceplanes to the Ship Prefix page, but an admin told me it was for surface vessels only, which makes sense. However, I was directed here by him to discuss if a "Spacecraft Prefix" page should be made. I know the Bigelow Commercial Space Station was originally called "CSS Skywalker" (Commercial Space Station). Should these be given their own page, with maybe a reference to USS Enterprise and USCSS Nostromos, etc. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PythosIsAwesome (talk • contribs) 17:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I think a Spaceship Prefix page is worthy, so long as a distinction is made between real and fictional ships. --Neopeius (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @PythosIsAwesome: I have created list of spacecraft prefixes. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Space mission boilerplateEdit
The former Space misssions WikiProject created a boilerplate template for (specifically human) space missions. However, since the WikiProject is merged to WikiProject Spaceflight, I haved moved the template as a subpage of this project. Are there any interested editors to look into this boilerplate?
Link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Human spaceflight boilerplate.
--Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- O, it was a guide to create articles about space missions. Anyway, it does not matter and I am converting it into a boilerplate. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Any interests to write spaceflight articles in Simple English WikipediaEdit
I think we have written many spaceflight articles for literate people. Now its time to write spaceflight articles in Simple English with limited vocabulary. Well, there is a Wikipedia for this purpose, which is called Simple English Wikipedia. Are their editors interested to write spaceflight articles in Simple English Wikipedia? If so, then we can form a branch of WikiProject Spaceflight there, with advices, open tasks, and banners written in Simple English. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Addendum: I have seen in the Simple English guideline of WikiProjects that they are created in userspace since most of them are inactive there. However, we hope that our branch in Simple English Wikipedia should not be inactive and will be created at project space, with discussions hosting at here. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- How visited is the Simple English Wiki? Right now, the articles appear to mostly be NSSDC/Astronautics/Gunter Krebs/Jonathan McDowell cribs. --Neopeius (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have just started editing some of the space articles on the simple wiki, and could make a spaceflight wikiproject. There are definitely limited numbers viewing space articles I have looked at but I think that is partly due to the lack of content on spaceflight articles currently. Terasail[Talk] 17:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I am watching the TV series on Disney+ The Right Stuff — which by the way is slightly below average — and out of curiosity I tried to look in wikipedia for the biographies of the wives of the original Mercury Seven astronauts. I was kind of surprised there is none, except Annie Glenn. These women have been portrayed in a number of books, movies and TV series — and of course in Life — and I was kind of surprised they have not been considered worthy of a wikipedia entry. Thanks Hektor (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if being married to an astronaut is noteworthy enough for an article. But it's worth noting that the article on Annie Glenn is not focused on being an astronaut's wife. It's more focused on her work advocating for and helping people with speech disabilities. So she's noteworthy for more reasons than being John Glenn's wife. Fcrary (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rene Carpenter and Betty Grissom also have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Slightly off topic but would there be any objection to adding the "Spouse" parameter to Template:Infobox astronaut, to wikilink to those articles? Especially since there seems to occurrences where both spouses and have Wikipedia articles. Bob Behnken/K. Megan McArthur, Doug Hurley/Karen Nyberg, and Shannon Walker/Andy Thomas. Though that would mean having to update a lot of the astronaut articles! (there is a way to do this now like this - but adding the parameter directly would be easier) OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I am not in the US and thanks to this discussion I discovered that there was a book and a TV series called The Astronaut Wives Club. At least with The Right Stuff and this other book the creators of such articles would not lack sources. Hektor (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I saw in Archive 7 of the talk page that an alternative header for SPFLT was proposed. I have implemented it with several new features:
- The HST is retained in the header as it is.
It will be visible in all of the pages.
Images varied by sub-projects are visible in the right.
- The name of sub-projects are visible at the bottom when chosen one.
--Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Doing away with the term "working group" from WikiProject Spaceflight?Edit
When I began to reorganise the WikiProject, I saw that some sub-projects (all defunct) are called "task forces" and others are called "working groups". According to a 2011 interview between SPFLT members and The Signpost:
WikiProject Spaceflight has Task Forces as well as Working Groups. What are the differences between the two?
- Colds7ream: They can pretty much be thought of as an experiment in collaboration. The Task Forces are what remains of WikiProject Human spaceflight and WikiProject Unmanned spaceflight, and their model is to operate a large editor base responsible for a range of articles with general aims. The Working Groups on the other hand, we see as task-dependent. Their model is to take a small group of editors and a small group of articles, and carry out a specific task.
- GW: When this structure was decided upon, the Task Forces were intended to look after large numbers of articles, taking care of general tasks and breaking the project's content into more manageable sections, as well as maintaining a structure similar to what had existed prior to the reorganization. In practice, the project has become more centralized than expected, so maybe this element of the structure needs to be reviewed. The Working Groups are intended to be small groups of editors collaborating on an area of common interest, and in some cases with a particular goal or end result. We currently have two such groups with very different aims. The Timeline of Spaceflight Group is attempting to produce a comprehensive timeline of spaceflight, listing every spaceflight since 1943, while the Space Stations Working Group works to develop a series of Featured topics on space stations. The working groups are intended to be ad-hoc collaborations, which can be created for any purpose as long as several editors want to collaborate in that area.
However, such distinctions are not present in most WikiProjects (for example, sub-projects of WP:MILHIST are called "task forces" regardless of its size by participants or articles). Plus, task forces are defunct and we only have working groups. In order to be consistent with other projects, we should do away with the term "working group" altogether in favour of "task force". Any thoughts? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Evolution of SPFLT administrationEdit
- I have illustrated the evolution of SPFLT administration at User:Soumya-8974/Evolution of SPFLT administration. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- And a lovely job you did of it, thank you! I recently resumed work on 1966 in the spaceflight timeline. --Neopeius (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Mir, ISS and Gateway task forceEdit
I will be working on a task force that will focus on Mir, ISS and Gateway and their missions. I will do so by renaming the existing space stations working group. However, it will be a joint task force between SPFLT and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations. Are their any willing members to be collaborative about this task force? --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Please add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force/Members if you are interested to collaborate on articles about international projects like Mir, ISS and Gateway. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Australia-New Zealand Space AgencyEdit
At List of government space agencies#Expected and proposed future space agencies there is an entry Australia-New Zealand Space Agency I think this is not real because the only source is the facebook page which is mentioned. The contact email at FB is email@example.com which doesn't look sirous. I think this is only a fanpage and nothing offical. Therfour it should be deletd from the list. Has somebody more information about it? Malo95 (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Malo95: I removed the segment from the table since facebook is not a WP:RS and since WP:CRYSTAL states that articles about the future should be properly referenced. It should only be added back if there is a more reliable source added to the table. Terasail[✉] 16:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Could someone who knows about such things have a look over NASA research? This is possibly the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and there's stiff competition for that title. Given that it only has two incoming links, consistently averages 1/4 of the pageviews of Cats That Look Like Hitler, and that presumably everything here is already covered in English rather than gibberish on the article for each NASA program, I'm strongly inclined to just delete it, but you're better placed than me to say if there's actually anything here worth salvaging. ‑ Iridescent 16:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yea... In the four sentence lead, I count seven grammatical errors. And the article doesn't get better after that. I can see the value of an article on this subject, but not this article. Unless someone wanted to completely rewrite it (and I'm not volunteering), I'm in favor of simply deleting it. Fcrary (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- I would say delete it. I don't think the article can be made useful. The topic of NASA research is very broad. Several of their facilities do little but that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Goodness. It certainly is something! I got a good laugh. And now I'll have a good cry. --Neopeius (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASA research. ‑ Iridescent 17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I am looking for an image of the Galileo spacecraft tape recorder. The Earth test article is on display at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. See  There are no public tours at present due to COVID-19, but maybe someone has an image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- You've gave us the COVID-19 excuse, but uh anyway. Can't find in Commons. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Mir, ISS and Gateway task force. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Manned Orbiting LaboratoryEdit
My nomination of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory is stuck at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1) for lack of reviewers. If someone could drop by and contribute a few comments that would be appreciated. You don't have to review the whole article. But you may find the article an interesting read, being about the USAF's manned space program of the 1960s. The article has been around since 2004, but assumed its current form after the NRO declassified the documents related to it in 2015. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh shoot, I'm sorry. I'll continue my text review. Thanks for reminding me! --Neopeius (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Project Timeline hasn't exactly gone semi-active, but it has gone unmonitored. The progress page hasn't been updated in a decade.
I'm happy to work on it, at least up through 1966, but I'd love it if the other members of the task force could post their updates on the discussion page there. :) (yes, I know we've centralized discussions, but timeline is one of the still active groups.)
--Neopeius (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020 UpdateEdit
Hello, folks. This is what I've been up to lately:
How 'bout y'all? :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)