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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
For the articles split under: List of Ariane launches, List of Atlas launches, and List of R-7 launches in the year range, the end year is given in full. i.e:
The cited reason for not having the full ending years listed on the Thor/Delta and Proton pages was MOS:YEAR (see move edit history and see move edit history, both in 2013). The editors who moved those pages may be referring to MOS:DATERANGE in particular which originally favored the two digit method. However, in 2016 this this RFC changed the policy to be in favor of having the full ending year.
Therefore, would it make sense to move pages having the two-digit ending years to having the full ending years? (also citing WP:CONSISTENT - although that could work either way, hence why I brought it up here, and a strong local consensus could be in favor of having two-digit ending years). There might be other launch list articles that are split by decade but I didn't find any. OkayKenji(talk page) 03:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Support whatever policy says now. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support full ending years, per MOS:DATERANGE cited above. The policy suggests that the two-digit notation is allowed for "any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources", which to me suggests that full ending years is preferable unless there is a frequent use of two-digit endings in reliable sources. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 18:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support full years per the RFC cited above. In particular Tazerdadogs summary at the top of the RFC states "Firstly, when space is at a premium, such as in tables or infoboxes, two year date styles may be used. Secondly, applications such as sports seasons, fiscal years, and consecutive years use the two-year date range convention without problems." We see that neither case is relevant to the titles of these list articles.--Cincotta1 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should note that another editor moved those pages to full years after I opened the discussion here; none the less the most of the local consensus seems to support full years so far. OkayKenji(talk page) 19:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between this discussion and that one is that the latter involves consecutive years whereas the former involves a half-decade. Consecutive years is one of the exemptions listed in MOS and in the RfC and I am not sure the latter discussion is relevant here as a result.--Cincotta1 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 19 March 2020
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus— Wug·a·po·des 22:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
– According to the article itself, "Ptichka" is also called "Buria". Therefore, rename this and other articles à la OK-GLI. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not some "Shuttle", but Buran-class spacecraft. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this at most looks to make it way more confusing to me, for sure in the current proposed form. "Shuttle 2.xx" does not tell me anything about what it is and If I was looking for a Buran-class spacecraft that would certainly not make me think that it would be that. "Shuttle 2.xx"... does someone mean badminton shuttle version 2.01, Shuttle bus route 202 or could it be a redirect for the American space shuttle? I don't think anyone would know. --Redalert2fan (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Renaming the article "Shuttle 1.02" is IMHO confusing for two reasons. One, "Shuttle" is a word typically associated with the American NASA Space Shuttle System, therefore is not suitable for the Soviet Buran program. Two, Shuttle may in some cases bring the reader to think that the Buran Programme was just a simple "copycat" or "version" of the American Shuttle, while the Soviet proposal is different in many ways. If you really want to keep the series of articles consistent, either "OK-1K2 Ptichka" or "Ptichka (Buran-class spacecraft)" could be more appropriate Stormtrooper (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Ptichka means "little birdie", I am surprised the article as it is now is not called something like "Ptichka (reusable spaceplane)". Anyway, this machine has an official name, so use it. Mikus (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that current move proposal (à la OK-GLI) is a little incorrect. For orbital vehicles there are two known naming systems: by hull (1.01, 1.02, 2.01, 2.02, 2.03), and by GRAU index serial number (1K, 2K, 3K, 4K, 5K). Designation like 2K1 is the flight configuration (2K is the designation of the orbiter, 1 is the flight number of this orbital vehicle), it was probably intended to be used similarly to the designations of STS flights in the US. As for me, continuing referring to those vehicles as "Buran-class spacecraft/orbiters", with a hull number is the best option. For Ptichka (the name is not official, as far as i concerned), the name itself sounds a bit informal, and sources i found do not clarify the origin of this name. The name "Burya" would most likely have been approved if the program had not been closed. Qydm (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (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.
Indeed, the first discussions were around the merger, and this one is about the redirects. Kees08 (Talk) 16:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Book availability
Does anyone have Dubbs, Chris and Burgess, Colin. Animals In Space: From Research Rockets to the Space Shuttle, 2007.? It could be used for the FA Laika, either if whoever has the book is interested, or otherwise if they can scan (or take photos) of certain pages for me.
Semi side note, I have been planning to make a library page for myself on what books I own; would a page like that hosted in this project which combines all of our book collections be helpful to others? Kees08 (Talk) 16:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I now see this attempt at discussion here; sorry I missed it before jumping in to the discussion on the article talk page. I intend to leave my comments there intact, but here I will encourage you to be WP:BOLD, but not reckless! Best regards and thanks for your efforts! (sdsds - talk) 07:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current usage of Infobox spaceflight is inappropriate, but it does not seem that an appropriate infobox exists. I looked at various maritime expeditions. Those with standalone articles, like the Challenger expedition and Second voyage of HMS Beagle, lacked an infobox. Other were subsumed in the article about the main ship or submersible, which generally used the modular infoboxes about the ship, see Template:infobox ship begin. There isn't that much information in the NOAAS boxes right now and infobox ship does not seem appropriate to expand it, so maybe just convert the contents to prose and delete the infobox.--Cincotta1 (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. When I am in the zone of fixing the easy ones it is difficult to exit and do the work that you did and then get back into it. Thanks for looking into it. I have almost all the invalid parameters fixed used in infobox spaceflight! I have to add TemplateData to get them to work for our other infoboxes, but I will get around to that at some point. Kees08 (Talk) 21:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Planetary Science Institute has recently released detailed costs for all NASA planetary science missions (all numbers are in millions of US dollars). There are headline totals for each mission, and comparisons by year, celestial object and funding stream. Detailed annual budgets for each mission are given, before and after inflation adjustment. This could be a valuable source for dozens of articles. Modest Geniustalk 11:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Frontier Radio is a draft that has been bouncing around for a couple of years now with very nominal improvements. The subject doesn't seem to have much independent coverage, but does seem to be an intergal component in a few space probes. Requesting comment from this group at the MfD that has now been put up for it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frontier Radio. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References mentioned in the template have been added to the article. I nominate for removal of the template. If there are no objections, we can remove it after the talk. Any other suggestions to improve the article is greatly appreciated.
Thanks!-Crazydaemon1 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While reading the article Shenzhou program I noticed after expanding it, that at the bottom of Template:Shenzhou program it says the previous mission is "Shenzhou 9" and next mission "Shenzhou 10" However Shenzhou 11 has already flown in space (in 2016). When I viewed the template to see if I could fix that, the intricate features of wiki-template syntax stumbled me, and are above my editing capabilities. So instead of screwing around with it, I thought it best to leave the info here. --Dutchy45 (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the before and after parameters are arguments given to the navbox when you call it. As I read it, if you were adding this box to Shenzhou 5, for example, the template markup would look like {{Shenzhou program|before=[[Shenzhou 4]]|after=[[Shenzhou 6]]}}. Rather than capturing the program as a whole, the before and after arguments show the events relative to specific article.--Cincotta1 (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed rename of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– With the official renaming of CCAFS to CCSFS (confirmation is in body text of linked article), I'd like to once again propose to group all Cape Canaveral launchpad articles by geographic location. Many of these launch sites have been inactive since the 60s, so renaming them to "Cape Canaveral Space Force Station Launch Complex #" would be incorrect, as they never had that name during active use, and renaming only the pages of active launch sites would violate Wikipedia guidelines on title consistency. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 08:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the situation has changed since then. I am proposing a different rationale: That this is the best way to reconcile the article titles with the newly-renamed Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. – Jadebenn (talk·contribs·subpages) 18:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article in question is slightly incorrect. Renaming bases has not yet occurred, but will occur after the Cornoavirus crisis dies down. That being said, I think all of these make sense to execute now, except for rennaming from AFS to SFS. Garuda28 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (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.
Recent changes and Controversy heading at United Launch Alliance
Hello, Megan with ULA here again. I'm disappointed to see some of the recent changes to the United Launch Alliance article, which reintroduce a "Controversy" heading and unfair text the community removed last summer. I've submitted a request here to remove the header, per Wikipedia:Criticism. So far no editors have replied to the request. Editors here have been very helpful in the past, so I'm hoping members of WikiProject Spaceflight might be willing to undo recent changes or merging content into the History section appropriately? Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
