This is an archive of past discussions with User:Navy blue84. 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.
You or someone using your IP address obviously did. I was not just picking on your IP address. The tool used to revert vandalism, that is used by me and many, many others opened your page. If you use a shared computer or a shared IP address and didn't then you may ignore the warning. If that is the case, I suggest signing up for an account, which will prevent the confusion later on. Also please sign your posts by using ~~~~ (4 tildes).--NavyBlue8421:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
STS-131 MPLM
Please stop changing the MPLM to Rafaello. I am a lead Flight Controller on this mission and I am 100% certain that Leonardo will be flying on STS-131. The articles on NASAspaceflight.com are inaccurate. Prenaud (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
All you needed was a reliable source. Just because you are a flight controller and you say so doesn't make it so. If you are not sure if a ref is reliable, then check with WP:RS. The collect space ref is to a forum and is not allowed. Also because you are directly involved with the mission you should be careful in making edits to the article, as its a conflict of interest. Any major changes that might be controversial should be discussed on the talk page first.--NavyBlue8414:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
STS 130 page is quite poor
At the moment, the STS 130 page contains very few technical details (especially for mission timeline). Also referencing needs to be improved. Some editors just add any arbitrary images (example; landing picture is repeated twice) that they can find in NASA pages. In my view such additions lower the content value of the page. It would be better if the images show of significant event of the mission. I have seen that you put a lot of effort to enhance the content of this page as well as other space related articles. Many thanks for all of your efforts.
I see you do a lot of work too, and thanks for helping make the articles better. I agree a lot of pictures does not help the article. There were a lot of launch photos of the same thing, just slightly different angles, so i removed several. When I do the mission time-lines, I try to make it technical, but not to technical. You want someone who doesn't follow space related stuff to read it and know whats being said, but yet keep those who do follow interested, it is an extremely fine line. I will go over it in the next few days and see what I can do, I know there is still lots more work to be done. I will try to dig up more refs and put them in. Thanks for for the message and look forward to bettering the space articles with you!--NavyBlue8414:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am not a "deletionist". However, making unhelpful and nonconstructive comments doesn't help Wikipedia at all. Saying someone is a deletionist is a bit defamatory and inappropriate. Just because something you think should be included got deleted, doesn't mean Wikipedia is ruined, in fact, it is pointless to document every single ice particle incident in the space shuttle program (it happens on every mission).--NavyBlue8415:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Great!, Thanks a lot. The STS-134 patch looks a bit small compared to other shuttle patches (may be due to its unique shape). Can all Shuttle patches (from STS-1) be made to have the same size (just a suggetion and even if not its should be fine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurun (talk • contribs) 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am going to work on that. I want to try to remove the white background, but I am not sure how to. I am going to try to figure it out. Someone else might upload a better version in the mean time.--NavyBlue8403:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I have read in NASAspaceflight.com that STS-134 mission duration is 12 days. However, I have not seen this change in official NASA pages which still states that it is a 10 day mission.
152.226.7.202 (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that NASA takes there time in updating mission pages that are still aways off (i.e. STS-131 pages will be updated daily or hourly as needed, but STS-132 and onwards will get updated infrequently). NSF has been determind to be reliable, and so if they say 12 days, then it is more then likely going to be 12 days, unless some major change happens, which is possible. I looked for other sources (Spaceflightnow, Space.com and others) but couldn't find any that stated a mission duration. If you can find one then please add it and make the changes as needed. --NavyBlue8403:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
NASA STS 132 Mission Summary
Just found this. The last dot point about the commemorative mission path on the STS 132 fact sheet (current Ref. 26) is almost the same (sentences) as what is found in the STS-132 Wikipedia web page (see commemorative path section). Seems like sometimes, NASA is also referring to Wikipedia content.
It would appear that way, wouldn't it! The section in the article about it is strung togther from bits and pieces of the three ref's, and that's probably what NASA did. I think it is just coincidence that it is exactly identical. I am sure there are some people from NASA on Wikipedia, and I am sure some content from Wikipedia is used, but this I think is a coincidence!!--NavyBlue8400:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
ISS Expedition pages
The current pages on ISS expeditions (Example: Expedition 22,23) looks primitive and contain very few interesting/useufl information. Would it be good to make a standard template for the pages similar to STS pages since the ISS will be operating at least till 2020? It would be also great to encourage Wiki contributers to edit the expedition pages to complete them. Videos/images could also be added to reflect major expedition milestones.
I don't think you can really create a template for expeditions. Info like launch details, visiting vehicles, more detailed spacewalk info and science info (if possible) could be added. As for encouraging people to edit the articles, I think that will happen on its own. I plan to try and figure something out and begin working on ISS expedition articles, but at the moment I am working on adding docking/undocking info to info boxes for STS articles and trying to get some cohesiveness between them in-terms of times and dates. If you have any other specific ideas let me know and we can see what we can do!--NavyBlue8416:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Roscosmos Images
Are the images in the Russian Roscosmos site copy righted? [1]. If not how can they be included in the Wikipedia? (like what license / any permission etc)? Thanks
152.226.7.201 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The link you provided is to Energia, not Roscosmos (they do a lot of work for Roscosmos). As for permissions I am not sure what if any can be used. I think someone like GW Simulations, MBK004 or Colds7ream might be better to ask that question of. I have never uploaded anything from anywhere but NASA, so I am really not sure, but I know one of them can help you for sure!--NavyBlue8400:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you post a new version of the patch only ? At the moment, there seems to be a large white background encircling the patch 152.226.7.202 (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't be there. I don't see an white background now. The first one I uploaded did have that background. I have uploaded a PNG version and made sure that background was gone.--NavyBlue8402:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Infobox Astronaut
Is it possible to add "Spacewalks" to the Astronaut infobox (to show how many spacewalks that an astronaut has conducted)?. I am sorry, I do not know how to add such new information into an infobox or whether it is appropriate to show something like that in the first place. 137.132.3.10 (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Done!! Adding the label eva1 will display total eva's and eva2 will display total eva time. For the eva time please spell hours and minutes not just hr and min, makes it look a little nicer. I will start adding some myself and you can as well.--NavyBlue8412:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Great, Thanks a lot. I really appreciate your help. Do you know of any source where I can obtain the total no of EVAs and the total time for a particular astronaut? 152.226.7.201 (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a List of cumulative spacewalk records which has the top 30 spacewalker's by time. Also spacefacts has a list of astronaut's and cosmonauts with EVA experience sorted by time. Most of the NASA bio's have total EVA times listed under each mission for an astronaut, and most of there Wiki articles have it listed for them under there spaceflight experience section or somewhere in the article.--NavyBlue8415:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Apart from several recent STS missions, most of the other Wikipedia pages on Shuttle Flights are incomplete/lack information etc. It would be also nice to create an uniform look on all pages starting from STS-1 to STS-134 or STS-135 if it happens. I am aware that information about earlier missions are very scarce. However, if the layout of the pages are consistent and uniform that would be great! (and would be a tribute to the STS program, in my view). Are Wikipedia editors interested in making such an effort to improve the quality of the STS mission pages? Kurun (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I think they are. However, as I am sure you are aware, most editors have differing views on how it should look. I think having them look like the articles on recent missions would be good. Some of the missions for which there is none to very little info, is because they were classified or the payloads were privately owned, and that information isn't public. However I believe there is enough info to start working on all the articles to give them a uniform look. I will jump in and start helping bring all these pages into line so they look somewhat decent.--NavyBlue8412:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Its still months away. Lets wait until there is more info to add to the table. Is that likely going to be the plan, yes. However, an empty table like that does not look very appealing. So waiting until there is more info as well, is a prudent course of action, I think.--NavyBlue8403:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
OK I agree. Any information on whether Atlantis or Discovery will be used if STS-135 is approved?. Wikipedia has it as Atlantis while forum messages in the NASAspaceflight.com site mentions that it is still not decided or even it will be Discovery. 137.132.3.10 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing on that. STS-335 is Atlantis, and the theory is Atlantis will get 135 since she will be just about if not fully ready for launch. NASA managers could decide though to change to Discovery since she has SSPTS and can carry a lighter cryo load and stay longer. Won't know for sure until much much later, like January if its going to be Atlantis or Discovery, could be sooner like when the approval is given. Just have to wait and see.--NavyBlue8411:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Gregory H. Johnson
Hi ViennaUK, I have reverted your edit to Gregory H. Johnson. I did so because you deleted a proper category. Greg Johnson is British, this is verifiable by checking his NASA bio, which is linked at the end of the article.--NavyBlue8423:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your message. I don't doubt that Gregory H. Johnson was born in South Ruislip, Middlesex, United Kingdom. However, does this make him British? Does he hold UK citizenship? (He is a NASA astronaut and former Colonel in the US Air Force, so I don't think he does!) Calling him British just because of his birthplace is problematic, just think of astronauts Shannon Lucid (b. in Shanghai, China), Michael Collins (b. Rome, Italy) and Stephen Thorne (b. Frankfurt, Germany). Lucid is not Chinese, Collins is not Italian, and Thorne is not German - they are all US citizens who were born as children of US citizens, only that their birthplaces are not in the US of A. Greg Johnson looks like a similar case to me. ViennaUK (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The difference for the astro's you point out is that they were born to Americans abroad. I am Canadian by birth, but have American citizenship, that does not make me American. Since there is no info on his parents, we can only go by his birthplace as to what nationality he is.--NavyBlue8422:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see that we are working with different definitions of nationality here... but if (and I thank you for bringing up this example) holding American citizenship does not make a person American, what else does - is e.g. Henry Kissinger (born in Germany to German parents, naturalised US citizen) a German politician then? Very tricky I must say! Anyways, was nice talking to you. ViennaUK (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
STS-112
I wrote the mission timeline part of STS-112 since these mission pages are quite pathetic; full of English Language errors / insufficient amount of references / figures etc. It would be better if all Editors could start to enhance these pages. I deliberately placed them blank so that others can come and contribute (if left hidden people wont see that the page is not complete!) 152.226.7.202 (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
To add more to that, it would be better to bring all mission pages under a single format (the one we have for flights such as STS-122 to STS 132 which is great!). I recently, re did an entire mission page (STS-117) which at the beginning was again incomplete. Since the Shuttle Program is winding down pretty soon, it would be nice to have informative Wiki pages starting from STS-1 up to STS-135 ! 152.226.7.202 (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm Sorry
I can tell by your multicoloured username that you are obviously a very important wikipedian.
The changes that you put back in are technically wrong. The leading edge of the wing (the RCC) is not covered by tiles. I work in the Space Shuttle Program and no one there would ever refer to the leading edge of the wing as "tiled". Read the CAIB report and you will see that the wing leading edge is called RCC. Not tiles. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thor Five (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
They may not technically be referred to as tiles, but the wins are not one long piece. They are made up of several panels, and should be referred to as such. The way you had it worded was grammatically wrong and that is why I reverted. I am not disputing the fact they are not called tiles. I have changed to read reinforced carbon-carbon panels.--NavyBlue8402:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't retire. Take the comments on your RfA as suggestions rather than criticisms. I can respect your decision if you still want to retire, but in my opinion, the encyclopedia can't afford to keep losing good contributors like you. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs19:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well that didn't go exactly as planned...
I'm sorry that your RfA didn't work out that well. You're clearly a good editor, and you didn't deserve to get slaughtered so unceremoniously. RfA tends to pile on a disproportionate amount of negative energy as to what is required. I've prepared an essay offering advice on second RfAs. Please read it, and see if you find it helpful. I think that one day, you'll make a good admin. This will give you something to focus on in the mean time. Best wishes for the future, Sven ManguardTalk19:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It is more towards a discussion I put into in a portal. I may reconsider and come back when I have more time as I am busy with school right now.--NavyBlue8420:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you do come back - we need all the good editors we can get, and I do hope your RfA doesn't play any part in turning you away. RfA can be tough, but I'm sure nobody thinks bad of you for running. In fact, the amount of moral support and constructive suggestions you got makes me think quite the opposite, that people think well of you for your enthusiasm and your desire to help. Look forward to seeing you around some more -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Navy blue84, I've significantly expanded DJ Skitz and found a lot of new sources since you commented in the AfD. Would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below.
Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects
The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group.
A number of issues are still under discussion:
Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process
Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles
Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes
Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones
A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
The current patch on the STS-135 article cites CollectSpace as its source, but where is the permission for it to remain up [and where can I view permissions]? (Nor have I received an e-mail from CollectSpace.) NASA has not yet officially released the patch. Or, if I read correctly, you're just letting this fly because you don't have the time?
I apologise for the email; I'm unacquainted with the Wikipedia profile system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unfrared (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why this patch is being left up. The permission would be on the page of the image. You are right, I haven't done anything to that page to tag it, simply because I am busy with school. I have a heavy class load and only get a very brief amount of time for frivolous web activities.--NavyBlue8401:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Most of those links are reliable (esp. the NASA, Space.com and MIT ones). The ones about her trip to the Ukraine, if there are other websites/sources that say the same then you may use them. If you can't find others about that, then I would take it to WP:RS.--NavyBlue8423:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems like she does not like answering any questions. She has only sent me some polite greeting messages. Gamweb (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Nautical or statute miles?
Hi,
Thanks for fixing the number of miles at STS-120. Are you able to specify whether the STS distances travelled are 'miles' are nautical or statute? Lightmouse (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Typically, the distance traveled that is given by NASA is in miles. Altitude is usually in nautical miles. I will double check the NASA history page for STS-120 just to be sure.--NavyBlue8423:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Kelly
FWiW, I'm really not fussed if it uses MDY or DMY (in fact my personal preference is for the latter) and the only reason I reverted that change is because I was reverting the unsourced addition of "retired" at the same time. However, I would just point you to MOS:DATE, which states that changes between date formats should not be made without consensus. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I figured that was why but wasn't 100% sure. I changed the dates since a lot of space articles (ie. space shuttle, ISS and expedition articles, as well as a number of space related bio's) are in DMY. It is a slow process but all articles are getting to DMY. As of yet, I have not heard any discourse for the change. The moment I hear it, I will stop and talk about it. As for the ref, I didn't have time right then to add it (couldn't find the article). Hope that is a satisfactory explanation! Cheers--NavyBlue8413:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
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 Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
I bumped its rating up to B-class but it is still saying C-class! Hopefully it works and just is slow in fixing it.--NavyBlue8413:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Navy blue84. You have new messages at Hqb's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi
Hi Navyblue84, I am glad you took the time to have a say there. I was quite worried it was very lopsided and was thinking I should change my vote to balance it up a bit, like maybe give WDGraham two votes because he seems so upset over it all. So I'm glad there is at least a little more balance.
The tally was more to illustrate people's objections to the original insertion, rather than to tally their eventual course of action. Some have left and so forth. I do wish you felt you could edit more on the page, I wish everyone felt they could freely edit on the page really. I'd rather there were no harsh feelings after the original change was made, like where people have stormed off. I guess I try to champion the most needy causes really.
Do you have any ideas on how to make people feel more welcome to return ? I know it's not exactly a popular cause, but we could certainly use all the help we can get and there have been some very skilled editors who have left. I feel that wiki is somewhat doomed when we can't keep all the editors together. Penyulap talk04:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a new bot which can help with Tiangong 1, the ISS, and now that I actually think about it, just about anything else in Orbit(though my interest does not extend that far at all, just stations are cool), I would like to invite you to comment on it at Talk:Tiangong 1Penyulap talk21:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi NavyBlue84,
Can you please expand on "And since we are discussing and opposing templates, I object to the one you added about being available to help." what is your objection exactly ? Penyulap ☏04:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowserCheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Done!! --NavyBlue84 00:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Retirement_of_project_member_WD_Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
