Talk:EASE/ACCESS

Assessment
Wow, nice work on this article! I love the heavy citing of source references! I don't know much about assessment, but I have tentatively placed this at "B-class", though I don't off-hand see why it shouldn't be classified higher. Because the article makes no direct claim that e.g. ISS design was influenced by these two missions, I'm hesitant to rate its importance to space exploration as highly important. Is that a misunderstanding on my part? (Sdsds - Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the praise! You're probably right on importance, I doubt anyone could argue that EASE/ACCESS was "highly important" to space exploration, but if I get a chance I'll try to find more about its impact and add it to the article. — Swpb talk contribs 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Name
Is it possible to rename the article using the move feature using the acronym: EASE/ACCESS  similar to other Space science experiments such as SSIES? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk  03:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the spelled-out name is preferred under Manual of Style (abbreviations). — Swpbt &amp; c 04:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving
There's a small argument against a move, but the quoted guide clearly states that you should use the most common form. Looking at the references, you can clearly see that the short forms are used far more often than the long form, even within their own documentation. Moreover, a google search clearly shows that this is true in a wider context as well. I highly recommend a move, considering the side effects its having on everything from the category pages to various lists. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You misstate the guide. WP:ABREV states that the spelled-out form is preferred unless the term is almost exclusively known only by its abbreviation and is widely known and used in that form. This case fails the second criterion, as the topic is not widely known at all. I forgot about this criterion when I requested the move, but in light of it, I now disagree with the move. » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Move?
Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures → EASE/ACCESS &mdash; More commonly used name. — Swpbτ • ¢ 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * More commonly used name. Withdrawing requested move per WP:ABREV. — Swpbτ • ¢ 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "EASE/ACCESS" sounds ambigious and to people outside the space organizations could look like any sort of easy access and to me first sounded like providing for the disabled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind on the move, although not for the reason you give. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an article title that "seems" like it might refer to something else, if it is the accurate name of the topic, which EASE/ACCESS is. It is not the job of the title to make it obvious to all what the article is about; that's what the first sentence is for. The title has one requirement: to be accurate. The real reason the article should not be moved is WP:ABREV, which states that the spelled-out form is preferred unless the topic is "widely known" by the abbreviation. Even though the abbreviation is much more widely used in this case than the spelled-out form, neither could be described as "widely known". » Swpbτ • ¢ 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple fact of the matter is that NASA refers to this by the short form, which you can clearly see in the images in this page. NASA's name for this is the name we should use. It is not up to us to tell NASA what the name is, just so that we can robotically follow a suggestion on formating written by someone else. We have a brain for a reason, mine tells me that the damage that this long name does to the wiki on the cat pages and others is far greater than the damage it would do to the wiki by using the short forms, which are more proper anyway. WP:IAR. 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To me, the policy is clear and sensible, and having a long title affect a cat page doesn't strike me as a good reason not to call a thing by its actual name. » Swpbτ • ¢ 19:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well: ACCESS is the "actual name". That's what NASA calls it. It calls it that in all of the references. It calls it that in the images on this page. Heck, even you call it that on your own personal page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Compare and contrast: ASSET, X-23 PRIME, MESSENGER, MAVEN, STEREO, etc. There is a clear trend to use NASA's common naming for these projects. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As per WP:NAME, I think Maury is right, and the article should be titled by its abbreviation. Reliable sources (notably NASA) usually call it "EASE/ACCESS", so we should called it "EASE/ACCESS". As Swpb pointed out, neither form is "widely know"; but NASA primarily uses the short form, which is what I think is important here. Mlm42 (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 17:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures → EASE/ACCESS – Obvious case of WP:COMMONNAME. The experiment is rarely if ever called by its full name, the abbreviated version is almost always used. -- G W … 11:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EASE/ACCESS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928233619/http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/UTILS/info.cgi?id=EL-1996-00066 to http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/UTILS/info.cgi?id=EL-1996-00066
 * Added tag to http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oce/llis/0833.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)