Talk:Encyclopedia Astronautica

Notability Discussion
This article has been tagged for issues since October 2007, without any commentary. A similar article (which interlinks to this article), on Jonathan's Space Report‎, seems to have the same issue but I've not tagged it (nor was I the original notability tagger for this E.A. article. I haven't researched Encyclopedia Astronautica sufficently yet to have a vote in the notability discussion, but there needs to be a notability discussion soon, else the tag ought to be removed and an tag added. - Ageekgal (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No discussion. I have changed the tag. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a space historian, let me say Mark Wade's site and Jonathan's site are very notable. For scholarly references, it's always a good idea to check web sources, but I have mostly found astronautix.com to be useful and reliable and a real public service.


 * Given that porn stars have their own Wikipedia pages, it's really a shame when someone suggests deleting an article about a productive and useful work like Mark Wade's website. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed it again. People seem to want to tag it, but not to discuss or justify their tag. AFD is the right place to settle issues of notability and tags are not meant to be a permanent badge of shame. No one can fix a perceived problem if you don't tell us what it is. SpinningSpark 13:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Don P. Mitchell== Reliable Source ==

How reliable is Encyclopedia Astronautica considered as a source for Wikipedia articles? It seems very good, but also self-published by Mark Wade. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mark Wade doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources; but it appears this website is relatively well-respected, and is cited by several reliable sources (such as books, and NASA itself has referred others to the website). So I would say citing Encyclopedia Astronautica as a source is better than citing no source at all, but this information can often be found elsewhere; so using this website as a source should probably be avoided. Mlm42 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee I have found errors in his work, but no more, and none more egregious, than ones I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. --Neopeius (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Mark Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct.  Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired.  Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight, pp. 484–485. SpinningSpark 13:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Even with this last statement it cannot be generally stated that the Encyclopedia Astronautica is unreliable. This is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Doubts or errors should be addressed more specifically. Some Wikipedia articles on rocketry science, although peer-reviewed, may have major issues. SchmiAlf (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its pretty clear that Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight is stating that the site is unreliable. Unless you have another source that states IT IS reliable, we should stick with what the source states. Ilenart626 (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree to @Ilenart626's last revert (see diff):
 * Stephen B. Johnson's full statement (published in 2006) is as follows: "Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors have not always been fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance. Many other online sources have the same problem." (I deduce: Even Wikipedia has its flaws and not all of it is correct ... for whatever reason.)
 * Mark Wade may have corrected and improved his web site until he finally stopped in 2019. So he had more than a decade time to fix issues and apply corrections. Unfortunately, we do not have details on his later work and there is no versioning where we could track his changes.
 * As already stated in the article: In 2015 the site received the Ordway Award for Sustained Excellence in Spaceflight History which "recognizes exceptional, sustained efforts to inform and educate on spaceflight and its history through one or more media" in 2015. Given this, a blame of unreliability risen in 2006 seems awkward, at least in the header context.
 * @Ilenart626's preferred version is: "The site is no longer updated or maintained and most space scholars consider the site to be unreliable." First, this obfuscates the sequence of 2019 vs. 2006. Second, he converts the statement "space historians have noticed a variety ..." to "most space scholars consider ...". If "most scholars" is not supported by additional relevant sources, it is not adequate as "use your own words". First of all, the proof of unreliability needs to be documented - In dubio pro reo, not the other way round to proof the reliability of a gigantic encyclodia.
 * My preferred version for the header is: "The site is no longer updated or maintained. Although it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct." Anything else is subjective and deprecative. More details - maybe the full quote of Johnson's statement may included below in the section Reliability controversy.
 * As a summary, I rate llenart626's wording as intentionally discrediting the value of Wade's encyclopedia - even if not every detail is correct. Errors can be also be found in Asif Azam Siddiqi's thousand-pager Challenge to Apollo (published in 2000) given that there are many additional sources (CIA, Russian web sites, other research) revealed since then as discussed in German influence on the Soviet space program. SchmiAlf (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, I refer to above's 2014 statement of DonPMitchell (in the section Notability Discussion of this talk: "As a space historian, let me say Mark Wade's site and Jonathan's site are very notable. For scholarly references, it's always a good idea to check web sources, but I have mostly found astronautix.com to be useful and reliable and a real public service. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)" SchmiAlf (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that is "intentionally discrediting the value of Wade's encyclopedia". We are all here to find the best version. But I do believe that putting "most space scholars consider the site to be unreliable" in the header is too much emphasis on that. It might not be wrong, but I gives the impression that most content of the site might be unreliable, while what I think the source means is that some of it is unreliable, errors having been found. So I support 's suggestion for the header, with the rest being expanded upon under "Reliability controversy". Daranios (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It's back
The site is back up; updating the entry to reflect this.Fishing Chimp (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's great. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reliability discussion
A "Request For Comment" (RFC) Reliable sources/Noticeboard has been started to rate it as


 * Option 1: Generally reliable
 * Option 2: Additional considerations
 * Option 3: Generally unreliable
 * Option 4: Deprecate

Please participate in it. SchmiAlf (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The RfC for the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica is finished with the following conclusion:
 * There appears to be a consensus that this is a valuable resource, but which lacks editorial oversight, and which contains errors, and is no longer updated, even among those editors advocating a Option #1 listing. That suggests that either #2 or #3 is the appropriate category. As between the two, there does not appear to be a clear consensus,though even those advocating Category #2 acknowledge that caution needs to taken in using the source. Given the lack of clear consensus, Category #2 - No consensus, appears to be the appropriate listing at WP:RSP.

--SchmiAlf (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)