Talk:International Space Station/Archive 10

Restructuring PM table, gallery / gallery article
The article can be improved by showing the interior of each of the Pressurized modules, it shows the outside of each one, which is good for construction, but could be improved to engage the readers more than it does at the moment.

The existing Pressurized module table could be modified slightly, to include one extra thumb per module, with an image selected to describe the interior of that module, or highlight it's best features. Although, some modules are much more interesting than others. Dawn and the MPLM's are not as interesting as the robot arm control boards, docking control panels, guidance and propulsion control and so forth, so they might do well if there was an extra section with thumbs for each of these items.

These new ideas are especially attractive to me because they will write themselves, unlike my efforts in the costs section, which is a painful mess, it was a mess before, and I've made the mess bigger now with no hope of fixing it myself, and it's not an attractive target for editors. Finding the good photos and writing descriptions relies primarily on agreeing and creating a structure for the section, as editors who enjoy photos are in no short supply. Seriously, who doesn't want to see the bridge of a space station ? Who doesn't want to see the buttons for the robots and imagine pressing them. This is a winner right here.

Am I missing anything ? Is there an article out there called ISS gallery I don't know about because it has no proper linking to this article ? These things happen. I ran into this the other day. If it doesn't exist, can someone help me make it for overflow from here ? Although the NASA photos don't seem as high a quality as some of the more elusive prey, they are certainly abundant enough and easily included. I think after one or two pics are popped in here, everyone will get this idea, I have some in mind. Penyulap  talk 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ariss picture.


A student speaks to crew on the International Space Station using Amateur Radio equipment, provided free by volunteers of the ARISS program. The description has been shortened from this, to what is seen at the right, and the picture is as small as it can be without disrupting the description too much.

I've had it released and uploaded as education is a very significant purpose of the ISS, and there are no pictures except sightings pictures, I figure this one helps illustrate the ISS in it's role in Education. Support, objections anyone ? Penyulap  talk 21:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support --Craigboy (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

New picture of the layout?
Now that we have gorgeous pictures of the ISS with Endeavor docked to it, I have made this drawing based on those pictures that show a real view of what is actually on the space station. It is fairly complete, only the truss details are missing. Where could we put this? TheAnarcat (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on your picture's inclusion or exclusion at this point, that is, I abstain from any kind of vote at the moment.


 * I'll predict it may be a target because there are already some pictures that do a similar job, like the one in the infobox.


 * Now what I will say for myself is I like it because it's not an exploded view of the station, which is harder to understand for many people. I think there is a lot of writing on the image you could put into the description instead, like the materials that you used to create it, and the shuttle / Soyuz could be just pointed out, rather than in the large letters. But your idea is a winner, the labelling of a photograph is something that we desperately need, your work will find a permanent place in the station structure section, continue with your revisions that you've been doing to it.


 * Please make the image size smaller if possible, I think your computer is designed for counterstrike, it's big and fast and new, but many people use older computers, and use dialup(I don't), which is not dead, or satellite and so on...(that is why I put such work into alt descriptions of photos I insert, it's for blind people I think) but you don't need to worry about an alt description for this photo.


 * You've targeted a niche that is needed, as so many people look at photos and do not know what is what, how can they ? Your idea will provide a shortcut to that, so keep at it. BRILLIANT !! Penyulap   talk 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree there may be too much text in there. Keep in mind that I finished this at 4AM after 3 hours of research... :) Soyuz, in the title, *can't* be pointed out because it's where the camera is. ;) Maybe more of that stuff can end up in the description however...


 * As for making the image smaller, i started with the full resolution photograph from the NASA and surimposed vector data using Inkscape, and that resulted in a somewhat big SVG, but not that big. Working on it was quite fast on my computer (Pentium dual core 2.9Ghz + 2GB ram), but I can understand the image size can be a problem for smaller machine. There are, however, renderings at 500px, 1000px and 2000px done by mediawiki itself that should render fine on any computer that can render images. :) I prefer to keep the uploaded image full resolution so that modifications can be performed on it without any loss.


 * So I agree more improvements can be done, but right now, anybody with a reasonably fast computer and Inkscape can make those modifications. I am not sure I'll have much more time to invest in it now... Thank you very much for your encouragements, it makes it all worth while. :) TheAnarcat (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, we can't do everything, but I hope someone takes up your brilliant idea and runs with it. It will get my support. Penyulap   talk 06:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Astrophotography
The picture on the left by Raplh Vandeberg, also mentioned on this page here has support, but I want to bring attention to the 'astrophotography' mentioned, for expert opinion, from experts in that field.

I've raised questions about it's technical definition as opposed to it's common useage, to see if it's a misnomer, on the astronomy, astronomical object, and astrophotography talk pages. However, it only has a passing mention, and I feel it's best to leave it with it's common useage until it's discussed properly on those appropriate pages. The discussion should go there, not here, and if it ever gets expert opinion referenced and updating of those pages, I'll update it here. Penyulap  talk 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Computer image
Here is a general picture I would dearly love to see included on the page, however I haven't yet asked about it's release into the public domain, for anyone who wishes to do so, wikipedia has a 'embassy' forum/talkpage thingy with multilingual editors who will assist you, so you don't need to butcher their language using google translate as I often do, lolz. (but remember, do your homework yourself, don't ask other people to help with the parts you can do if you try). RadioFan, would this be good for that computer section ? Here is the link for LadsPawnMCbuttInCntrStrike.jpg from the page here it would be nice to open the door to this great source of images, there are great ones of the food and all sorts of things. Penyulap  talk 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A similar probably can be found here.--Craigboy (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Found two, but they aren't as good. One Two--Craigboy (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Somemore. Three Four--Craigboy (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Five Six--Craigboy (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I support you on number 6's inclusion anywhere you like, it's a refreshing change, brilliant find. May I suggest it complements the new docking section. Something like 'Crew reberthing JAXA's robotic cargoship "white stork" Kounotori 2' see also reincarnation. Penyulap   talk 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Recognition of Japans contribution to the ISS
I have asked here for the article to be included in WikiProject Japan, after I noticed a glaring omission, that this article isn't part of WikiProject Japan, I have also asked here regarding CSA's involement. Penyulap  talk 00:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added the WPJ banner, so ✅. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 05:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ありがとう!! Nihonjoe Penyulap   talk 11:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC: New Draft of the Lede section.
This is Draft of a new lede section, please comment on any faults of errors you can see and say if you support it or not. Please do not copy and paste parts out of this into the current lede, upsetting the current prose. This Draft is written in a different prose to the current lede. This is the first paragraph only, other paragraphs will contain other facts and points not covered in this first paragraph.

The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite in Low Earth Orbit. The ISS is the the 11th space station launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations. The name Zarya meaning Dawn in Russian was given to the first module, launched in 1998, because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. The ISS program combines two space station projects, the Russian Space Agency MIR-II and NASA's Freedom, with Laboratory modules from the Japanese and European space agencies, and robotics provided by the Canadian space agency. These are the five major partners of the project. The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space and microgravity.


 * Previous discussion

This is a sentence by sentence breakdown of the lede first paragraph explaining the choice of wording.
 * habitable rather than manned or unmanned, the station flew by itself for about 2 years, and towards the end of it's life, or unforeseen emergencies or other reasons, may do so again. But it is different from artificial satellites because it can be manned or unmanned. This single word gives both meanings.
 * habitable artificial satellite defines what a space station is, allowing the article to stand alone.
 * in Low Earth Orbit describes where it is utilized. It existed on earth in uninhabitable parts, but became a habitable artificial satellite in orbit once Zarya and Zvezda docked. It is not suitable for use as a habitable station outside earth orbit without modifications for shielding, it's unlikely, as the partners haven't said anything AFAIK.
 * The first sentence describes what the ISS is at all times. Science does not define the station at all times, when it is uninhabited for example, or with changing usage. NASA has been looking for other groups to take over all science that doesn't relate to exploration for the last 5 or 6 months, wanting to hand off management to someone else. Potentially it may abandon the station altogether before the end of it's life. Russia has not launched it's main laboratory as yet, it serves other purposes for Russia. Science is inessential to defining the station, even though it is the major activity.


 * The ISS is the the 11th space station successfully launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, and Mir space stations. establishes context. Mentioning the Chinese space station will join it in space in a different orbit next year is also contextual, but it has been pointed out that this is a proposed station. Maybe that can wait until next year, when it will be required for context if it is launched. OPSEK, the successor to the ISS should be mentioned, not because it is proposed, but because most of the ROS of the ISS will be used for OPSEK. Those modules of OPSEK both exist, and are in orbit right now. To explain the end of the ISS requires mention of OPSEK, because the ROS is not planned to be de-orbited.
 * The name Zarya meaning Dawn in Russian was given to the first module, launched in 1998, because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. is an interesting fact, that also slips in the launch date, the name of the first module, and the ISS's position in international relations.
 * The ISS program combines two space station projects, the Russian Space Agency MIR-II and NASA's Freedom, the Russian MIR-II project is mentioned first as it was the more mature project, in Feb 1985 the Zvezda service module which renders the station habitable, and controls guidance and propulsion for the entire station, had it's spaceframe completed as part of the MIR-II program, and by October 1986 the major internal equipment was installed. Americas Alpha space station project had been scaled down 9 times between 1986 and 1993, when the US congress failed to kill the proposal altogether by a single vote.
 * with Laboratory modules from the Japanese and European space agencies, and robotics provided by the Canadian space agency. none of these are space station projects, despite the articles claims for as long as I can recall, and another editor saying they were, which I simply haven't wanted to argue (I don't like to argue).
 * These 5 agencies are the 5 major partners of the project. This short sentence uses the previous sentence to name the five partners, keeping the lede short.
 *  The main utilization of the ISS is to conduct scientific research in the space environment and/or microgravity. Lays out why the ISS is different from every other internationally-developed research facility in existence.
 *  Utilization is the word chosen, because like the Antarctic bases, whose purpose includes staking claims for the mineral resources and territories of that continent, the people in those bases use those bases for research. Scientific research is a larger portion of usage than it is of purpose.

I'd like to put up more of the draft after RFC on this paragraph. Penyulap  talk 09:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to oppose the proposed text as it is full of factual and grammatical errors, is not written in the same dialect as the rest of the article, puts too much emphasis on trivial points such as the name Zarya, and is quite simply far inferior to the current text. -- G W … 10:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * it would help a lot if you could list some or all of these errors, starting with the largest ones as you see them. Would it be better if the first module is not named or named in a later paragraph, or not at all in the lede? Penyulap   talk 01:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * if you could put them in point form here, it will help keep things tidy, please replace this text with the errors.
 * The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite: whilst the term "satellite" is technically correct it is never used in conjunction with manned spacecraft
 * The ISS is the the 11th space station successfully launched into orbit by humanity. If success is a criteria then it is the ninth: Salyut 2 and Kosmos 557 both failed immediately after launch, and it is misleading to imply they were successful simply because they reached orbit.
 * following the Salyut, Almaz, Cosmos, Skylab, and Mir space stations. "Cosmos" (or to spell it correctly, "Kosmos") is not a type of space station. If you read the Kosmos article, you will see that it is a name used to avoid acknowledging information on classified satellites and to hide failures. In this case the latter is true.
 * These 5 agencies are the 5 major partners of the project. Quite apart from WP:MOSNUM, this oversimplifies participation in the programme.
 * The main utilization of the ISS is to conduct scientific research in the space environment and/or microgravity doesn't even make sense
 * -- G W … 08:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

please consider these ideas on the points you have raised (reply to your helpful comments, and thank you !!!!)
 * (is not written in the same dialect) if you could help me to correct these, and also the parts of the existing article I'd appreciate it, please pay close scrutiny to the new exploration and education sections, I wrote half the work there, parts of the Origins, Assembly, Orbit control, Communications, Microgravity, pretty much all of the Docking section, parts of maintainence, orbital debris, sections and parts of space environment, Anomalies, all of the costs section except part of the first sentence, all of the temporary media section, and probably all of the end-of-life and de-orbit sections, can't recall. If you could suggest how this Draft paragraph could better suit the dialect of the article, or how those sections I have listed could better suit the dialect of the article I would be really appreciative, as I can't correct my own work, I need, and I'm asking for, help there.
 * (trivial points such as the name Zarya) yes, it is a trivial fact to many, however it is used as a framework to hit 5 birds with one stone, the launchdate of the station, the first module, and the 'international co-operation' the project represents. It combines the existing 'and the first module of the station, Zarya, was launched in 1998 by Russia.' and 'On-orbit construction of the station began in 1998 ' with an interesting fact, and I thought it would be good to mention 'international cooperation' in the lede, This one sentence, is also much more compact than it's components. Penyulap   talk 01:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'whilst the term "satellite" is technically correct it is never used in conjunction with manned spacecraft'
 * How come ? I'm not trying to argue here, just to understand, same as with the -6 magnitude, it was referenced everywhere that way, but it was wrong, and I'm glad it was explained by the Count too. Even Wiki and Heavens-above were wrong. A quick google and some of the dictionaries available online say it like this :
 * wikipedia : A space station is a manned satellite designed to remain in space for a long period of time, (we can't use wiki as a reference, but see what I mean, after it is sorted out we will need to update the other article as well, just like magnitude article.)
 * thefreedictionary.com A large satellite equipped to support a human crew and designed to remain in orbit around Earth for an extended period
 * dictionary.reference.com an orbiting manned structure that can be used for a variety of purposes, as to assemble or service satellites, refuel spacecraft, etc.
 * englishdefined.com a satellite which orbits the earth in which people can live and carry out scientific
 * dictionary.reverso.net any large manned artificial satellite designed to orbit the earth during a long period of time thus providing a
 * merriam-webster.com a large artificial satellite designed to be occupied for long periods and to serve as a base
 * answers.com A large satellite equipped to support a human crew and designed to remain in orbit around Earth for an extended period and serve as a base for launching exploratory expeditions, conducting research, repairing satellites, and performing other space-related activities.
 * webdictionary.co.uk a manned artificial satellite in a fixed orbit designed for scientific research
 * dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/space-station a vehicle in which people can travel round the Earth, outside its atmosphere, doing scientific tests (space shuttle anyone ?)
 * macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/space-station a laboratory in space that people can live in for long periods of time
 * realdictionary.com -a vehicle in which people can travel round the Earth, outside its atmosphere (again, spacecraft anyone ?)
 * ldoceonline.com a large spacecraft that stays above the Earth and is a base for people travelling in space or for scientific tests
 * why is it never used in conjunction with manned spacecraft ?


 * 'Salyut 2 and Kosmos 557 both failed immediately after launch, and it is misleading to imply they were successful simply because they reached orbit.' well I had qualified it with 'launched', how about changing it to say 'successfully manned'? and delete those two ? What is a good way to qualify them, or define success ? Like for planning or proposed the list is insanely long, I'm sure I can find more than 1,000 different proposals and planned stations, so that's ridiculous, it's not the 5234th space station, well, if we say proposed it's true. BUILT, I'm sure I can find many cults that have built space stations, they are real and you can touch them, but they haven't been launched. Skylab has to be included as it was a success in many ways even though it was seriously damaged during launch and ongoing problems made it impossible to fulfill it's mission completely. I was thinking Launched, but manned is better if that is what you have in mind.
 * The ISS is the the 9th space station successfully manned by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Skylab, and Mir space stations.

(the whole context thing is going to get more interesting soon enough, with the 1st gen Chinese station being launched within the year of so, the Chinese are happy to co-operate with any other nation in manned spaceflight, so we'll have potentially two ISS's up there, I'm not mentioning it now, as it's not launched, but it will be manned pretty quick, and knowing the Chinese program and economy, they could zip backups off the production line in a flash.)
 * '(or to spell it correctly, "Kosmos") is not a type of space station.'Firstly, THANK YOU, my spelling is terrible (I never can thank the copy editors enough) ! So do you mean they should be kept, because they were space stations, however, the term the Russians used for them is not the one we should use, or do you mean it would be better to say it like this
 * The ISS is the the 11th space station successfully launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations.


 * 'this oversimplifies participation in the programme.' Well, the 5 get mentioned in the sentence preceding this comment, so even though there are like 50 nations getting into it, and they'll have their mention, there are the big 5 who run the show. How would you use the opportunity of the preceding sentence to knock over the need to point out the big 5, and do it in half a sentence, rather than have to list each agency later on in the lead ? like this? It's short.
 * These are the five partners of the programme.
 * keep in mind, I'm only trying to knock off the 5 using as little real estate as possible, the rest of my draft will get to the others. (I'm just trying to get one paragraph at a time looked at, rather than find other solutions to fixing the ongoing problems)


 * 'The main utilization of the ISS is to conduct scientific research in the space environment and/or microgravity doesn't even make sense' fair enough, I'm trying to differentiate between the ISS purpose and usage.
 * The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space, and microgravity.
 * More approachable, shorter too, concise, no need to qualify that as purpose or usage. Also, could you expand on why Zarya's name is trivial, and what translations for dialect are needed ?

Penyulap  talk 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a point of view that didn't occur to me till just then, are you concerned about the use of the word successfully ? as in successfully launched, because your right there, it's not a good choice of word. People would argue until the end of time about skylabs launch. Is it better like this
 * The ISS is the the 11th space station launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations.

Penyulap  talk 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't broke..
Maybe I missed something, but what's wrong with the current lead paragraph? The proposed one doesn't really seem better in any way that I can see. The current lead seems clear, concise, neutral, well-written, informative, well-referenced.. it gets to the core of what's important quickly and efficiently. To me, it is what one should expect from an opening paragraph of a featured article. So could the proposer please clarify what problem it is they are trying to fix? Mlm42 (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you Mlm. I think everything you said is true. I don't think it needs to be changed, maybe updated, but even then I don't think it really needs that. We have to be careful making to many changes, we don't want to make it so bad it loses its FA status.-- Navy Blue84  02:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mlm42, and NavyBlue84, and thank you for your comments. I'd like to apologize for my lack of ability to properly articulate the problems with the current lead paragraph. I had made some efforts in this regard, such as in entire sections of the talkpage called 'Introductory paragraph' and 'Problems with the old introductory paragraph' amongst others. I've also tried to be much less verbose and approachable, using 'it's crap' as a description. I have serious trouble finding some balance between these two ends of the scale, finding a 'sweet spot' where more editors may actually address the actual problems one by one, rather than skimming over and ignoring problems altogether. I apologize for my shortcomings in this regard. Penyulap   talk 06:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay.. but you still haven't really answered the question: What is the problem with the lead paragraph? I still don't understand how any part of your proposed version is an improvement on what's already there. Mlm42 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I find this a monumentally astonishing question, really I do, and the reply to the next section is equally breathtaking. "(try searching the archives of this page)" You are replying to a statement I make concerning the archives, by suggesting I read the archives. I'm dumbfounded. Your asking "What is the problem with the lead paragraph?" when entire sections of the talkpage have been devoted to that subject and nothing else. Please, I've tried the edit summary like everyone else, I've done the talkpage thing until you've begged me to stop as it is too long to read, and now I should reiterate ? Please, give me half an hour or so, I have to find matches and call my neighbors so I can send carrier pigeons and smoke signals. I've tried everything else. I really am at a loss to do more. I need a doctor, this is all too much for my comprehension. Penyulap   talk 18:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ... Okay. I appear to be causing you frustration. I would like to improve this article as well.. is your main concern that the lead doesn't say anything about other space stations? Mlm42 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, what reliable source states that the ISS is the 11th space station? Because if we don't have a source that says that, then it shouldn't be in the article (and definitely shouldn't be in the lead). Although the "Origins" section mentions the other stations, the intro doesn't link to any of them.. so if a change were to be made, the most natural place seems to be the insertion of a single sentence in the second paragraph. But I'm not sure what such a sentence should say.. perhaps Penyulap has a suggestion? Mlm42 (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole thing about 11 space stations I think should be scraped. This is about the International Space Station, and stating that info is general to space stations, not this one. The meaning of names could be included in the origins or the table with eavh module. You don't want the lead to be to detailed, and I think the current version is the better of the two.-- Navy Blue84  01:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a fair comment to say that mentioning which space station it is as far as letting people know if it's the 8th 13th or 9th is fair enough, thats a valid opinion that it shouldn't be included as context, and certainly thats your opinion, I'll incorporate that, but tell me, how is it humanly possible for you to compare 1/3 of a Draft lead to the current lead ? I haven't posted the other 2/3rds yet, and you already making a comparison, how is that even possible ?


 * I'm not sure that scrapping the 11th thing is any kind of a good idea, if another wiki project spaceflight member just said two paragraphs before he wants proof of other space stations, what hope is there for mere mortals to find there way from this page to the other space station pages if Mlm42 can't do it ? Penyulap   talk 02:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

FAR??
It's not clear to me why this article has been nominated for Featured Article Review. The first step of FAR says
 * Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

What exactly are the issues that need to be resolved? Can the nominator, Penyulap, please state in one or two sentences the main issues which are not resolved? I can't say I've read all of the text on this talk page due to its length.. so a very short summary of the main concerns would be nice. Mlm42 (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It takes time to put in the whole FAR thing properly, it's in there now. probably lost about 2 new sections of editing wasting time on this, or one good section on robotics. Thanks for the heads-up on my talkpage, I do hope the response there clarifies things.


 * Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.


 * Oh gee, why didn't I think of that, I should have said something,. how do I get to the talkpage thing again ?
 * Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made) is this it here ? Penyulap   talk 18:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For a twitter-sized explanation see the bold text in the FAR thingy. Penyulap   talk 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem I see with the article is that it is clearly and obviously written using British English which is IMO perfectly ok however it has caused a lot of strong feelings in the past and I believe that is the reason that some feel it doesn't meet FA criteria. There is no reason to change that IMO and the article appears to be perfectly within FA quality standards. I too would like to hear any ideas on how the article can be improved. Maybe I'm missing something. --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Kumioko, welcome, it's good to have an experienced editor here. The ISS article has mistakes, however I'd like to start first with context of the lead section. Can you tell me by looking at the article if the ISS is the first ever space station, 8th or 15th ? Is that information something that might be important to mention, the ISS context in relation to other space stations.? I think Skylab, and other space stations are context. Penyulap   talk 19:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This information is in the article Space Station. The "Origins" section clearly indicates that it's not the first.. even the opening sentence, which says "largest space station ever constructed" suggests that it's not the only one. Mlm42 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then can we get the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) updated please, maybe like this.

The lead some other article should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It that other article should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.
 * I'm happy to suggest and support this, are you with me ? seriously, I have already said this a gazillion times,. Penyulap   talk 19:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes.. Sarcasm is really helpful. As I already said, the phrase "largest space station ever constructed" already suggests that it's not the only one.. I'm not sure a concern about how much context the lead paragraph provides is enough reason to start a FAR? Mlm42 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not being sarcastic. If the manual of style for the lead section is wrong it has got to be fixed. I can't imagine how many beginners like me are making a mess of things because they follow it the same way. Penyulap   talk 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, okay. No, the MoS should not be changed (I thought you were kidding..). The lead paragraph definitely needs context. But exactly what this means is up to editorial discretion. For example, I would say that almost all of the lead paragraph is providing context. Your point of view is that listing other space stations provides context which is important enough to include in the lead. Others might disagree with this. But everybody agrees we need context!! The only disagreement that might occur is in determining the best way of providing context. Mlm42 (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Mlm42 can I ask you what you want
I've taken your advice on everything possible, but I can't understand some of it, you suggest that perhaps I should close off a poll I opened, even though I'm specific not calling for change or asking for action, just to get a long term idea of what everyone thinks. But after just 13 hours your asking if perhaps it's better to close off all further discussion about it? I don't understand, you called for discussion of ENG:VAR in the edit summary hours before, and it wasn't even editing my work as far as I know, because I don't care, I'm thankful for help. I was only trying to ask questions.
 * I did not call for discussion about ENG:VAR in the edit summary. The edit in question has the summary: program -> programme. Article is written in British English; to challenge this, use the talk page. By which I meant, if you want to challenge the fact that the article is written in British English (see the notice that appears every time you edit the ISS page), then you should use the talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You've said on my talkpage that I need to get consensus, but then you say you 'stepped in to try and stop the unproductive discussion.' after just 3 days and one constructive comment on the talkpage discussion I opened to ask for comment. I don't understand how you mean I should discuss proposed changes, this is confusing me.

You tell me I shouldn't edit the lead section without consensus, but I've already made what I consider to be a complete mess of the rest of the article. Huge sections of it are a disgrace to my eyes. People have been too kind about what is there, or I must be my biggest critic, but I don't think so,. But I spent the last 9 hours preparing the FAR, calling in the very best minds available from not just the wikiprojects that the ISS belongs to, but something like 15 or 16 of them, to help fix my disgraceful work. Look at the cost section, it's hideous. I did the best I could, but there is no reference at all anywhere at all for any of it. I didn't make any of it up I promise, but there are no references at all for it, only the first line, which i didn't write. I expected things as obvious as that to be struck down straight away, or any of the other sections I wrote to be destroyed every bit as fast as my drafts of the lead that you say are no good at all (and I agree they are no good, when GW pointed it out, I changed everything all over again). But I was shocked that when the best people I can find to fix the mess I made arrived they haven't destroyed everything at all, I don't understand why they are waiting.

All I can see are errors everywhere, and I listed lots of them, but you keep saying to me on the talkpage to tell you more of them, but I can't understand why you can't see them, and why other people can't see them either. They are so plain and so obvious. Someone has to fix them, at some point someone has to fix these problems and I am getting worried and upset because so far lots are picked up on by the experts, but lots are missed, LOTS.

CAN YOU PLEASE DRAFT A NEW LEAD FOR ME, or tell me who can draft a new lead. I can't understand why my work everywhere else isn't getting slashed to pieces like my lead drafts do. I know I say the lead has to be updated and fixed, but I ask you, who can we get to do this ? if it ever needs to be done, WHO ? I wish colds7ream was here, he could do it, he has made lots more contributions than I have, but he's been busy with exams for ages, and there are so many problems to fix.

Mlm42 please tell me who should draft a lead if at some point in the future it needs to be done. And when? how long should it wait?


 * Whoa.. okay (I'm a little scared right now..). I don't know if I can help you.. I don't think the lead needs to be rewritten, so I'm not sure why you are asking me to draft a new lead? "All I can see are errors everywhere".. that sounds like an editor's worst nightmare! Seriously, I was only trying to help you out, but you still haven't really pointed me towards these "errors", so I'm not really sure what more I can do.. sorry, and I hope this article doesn't eat you alive.. (because that's what seems to be happening..).


 * You asked what I want: I want you to slow down with your frantic edits, discussions, and changes to this already featured article. It's pretty good the way it is; and remember There is no deadline. Mlm42 (talk) 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes all I can see is errors everywhere, and whats more, I'm starting not to believe you anymore. I think that you can't see the errors, I think that is why you keep asking me over and over, even though I explain them already on the talkpage over and over. You don't read the talkpage. You use my talkpage instead to give me bad advice, like closing discussions and polls, and saying things like '(cur | prev) 23:23, 28 June 2011 Mlm42  (talk | contribs) (32,154 bytes) (→Hello:  don't set off the timebomb..) (undo)' and saying my prose is not good enough for the lead. If that was true, why isn't the article getting ripped to pieces ? It's FULL of my prose. I think you can't see the mistakes and I bet the Devil my head Ckatz can't see a single one either. I think you just want to OWN the lead. I think you want to stop this articles improvement altogether. Why aren't the expert editors, veterans from 15 Wikiprojects tearing it apart ?


 * If you can spot one error with the Lead and say it, I'll give you two. Spot an error in the Lead, and I'll spot two. lets see how far you get. I'll only name new errors, and you can cheat by reading the ones I've already listed on the talkpage.
 * And for Ckatz, I'll go FIVE to one. He's never given me a single fact about the ISS. But he is always there to overturn my edits.
 * I know you've got a chance Mlm42, because your from wikiproject spaceflight same as me. Penyulap   talk 00:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel like I'm in some kind of bizarre editor's game show.. maybe the reason other editors aren't "tearing the article apart" is because it's very long, and you've been making so many changes it's hard to keep track of them all (which is why I want you to slow down). The lead is easy to keep track of, and the most noticeable.. that's probably why you haven't been able to change it.
 * Now that you point to the "Costs" section, I agree, it's bad. You acknowledge it's bad. If I understand your strategy with this featured article, it's to come and rewrite large chunks, and then hope that throngs of other editors will come around and fix it all up for you?! New editors are encouraged to be bold but not reckless, and frankly I think you're pretty close to the line, if you haven't already crossed it.


 * If you aren't happy with the prose you have added, I strongly encourage you to restore the previous text, and not wait for others to do it for you. Mlm42 (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure this is the right place for this discussion.. perhaps I should move it to my talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not running off into a dark alley with a stranger I know means to stifle and subvert my enquiries. You refuse to name any errors at all in the current lead. I'll ask you again, if the lead needs fixing, who decides, and who does it, in YOUR opinion. And why can't you name any error in it ? This is a talkpage. Use it.


 * This is the right place for me to ask YOU who YOU think should fix the lead if there are errors in it. These are two sticking points you refuse to come clean over. What are your intentions here, why do you keep stifling discussion ? Penyulap   talk 01:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are other people finding this discussion somewhat comical, or is it just me? The reason I "refuse" to name any errors in the lead is because I haven't found any.. was that a trick question? Am I missing something? If there are errors in the lead, feel free to either fix them yourself, or report them here so somebody can fix them.. but maybe I have to tell you an error before you tell us one.. and so the game show continues!


 * Sorry for my joking tone, but it's difficult to understand how this talk page has spiraled so wildly out of control. Anyway, this discussion is somewhat tiring, so I'm going to turn in. Mlm42 (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not finding this funny the ISS is possibly one of humanities most important stepping stones into colonizing other planets. Your stifling discussions here, you are asking me how to find references for other space stations ? you can't find any errors in the lead ? who are you, what is your agenda here how did you get into wikiproject spaceflight ? This is a serious article, this is important to millions of people, three thousand people a day look to us for facts. what is your agenda Penyulap  talk 02:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The questions about errors in the lead are not a game, the question exposes you Mlm42 and Ckatz for what you are both doing to this article. I will not hide on talkpages. I have exposed what is going on here. I will continue to discuss problems that many other editors are having which are discouraging their honest contributions to this project.  Penyulap'''   talk 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Once that is dealt with every editor with something to offer will be welcome to do so, even you and Ckatz. There have been problems in the past, bad feelings in this discussion, and God help me I will root them out and find the cause, and make it so every person. EVERY person can feel welcome and comfortable here. Penyulap  talk 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK, comments such as the above should be removed as not helpful for the encyclopedia. If there is an actionable comment that needs to be made, it should be made on this page, but it must concern improvement of article content in line with Wikipedia's policies. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, Johnuniq. I think the grain of truth in Penyulap's comments is the concern that previous space station's are not mentioned in the lead paragraph. If I understand correctly, Penyulap is referring to this as an "error", and appears to believe there is some kind of conspiracy to keep other space stations out of the lead.
 * I've never really dealt with a situation like this, so I'm not sure how to proceed. Can someone help? Mlm42 (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I spent about two days work dealing with Ckatz in a tribune hearing, learning the procedure for that, plus another 9 hours editing time preparing the FAR because it was so hard to improve this article on my own. Then there's the additional time that's been wasted exposing this all for exactly what it is. So if you ask me, I can't help, because I don't know how to deal with the likes of you properly. I need adoption as I am too green to know how. Ironically Ckatz is an admin. But one thing is for sure, It'll get fixed. The sooner the better. I'm going to get back to editing and making sure new editors are made welcome and comfortable on this discussion page. There are plenty of errors in the lead. I haven't told any lies about the article and I'll still go 2 to 1 with anyone who claims otherwise, or just spill my guts to anyone genuine who wants to make this article better. THAT, making this article above FA is my agenda. Those errors need addressing and this article is going to get it's legitimate review done. Penyulap   talk 03:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, Ckatz's "tribune hearing", was this declined arbitration committee request by Penyulap. Mlm42 (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * @Penyulap: If you visit http://wikia.com you will be able to create your own wiki, and control what happens at that wiki. However, at Wikipedia, editors must collaborate, and no individual should dominate an article or talk page with frequent changes unless there is a clear consensus that the changes are helpful. Please do not post messages unless they relate to actionable proposals to improve this article, based on policies. No page at Wikipedia is a forum where endless discussions occur. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the insults Johnuniq. Thats rich on a talkpage jam packed with material which is now in the article with consensus. It really is.

Penyulap  talk 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz can you please give me advice on the ISS
Ckatz can you give me any advice on the ISS matters ? I seem to be asking you over and over without response, like two weeks ago, I asked you about the ISS, but you only respond within hours to matters like the ENG:VAR, should I stop asking you advice on ISS matters altogether ? I want your ideas, I seek your opinions on matters relating to the space station itself. Penyulap  talk 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm very, very reluctant to even enter into any form of discussion with you, because to date I see a history of over-reaction and unpredictability. You ask for input from the community, but when someone speaks up with advice or ideas contrary to what you feel is correct, you turn on them. You certainly wasted a fair bit of my time in your aforementioned (and ill-conceived) ArbCom adventure, which was way, way, way over the top for what was really a very minor matter, completely skipping over the most basic dispute resolution procedures. You seem to have a great deal of enthusiasm for editing the article, which is commendable. However, I really think that - for the good of the community and especially for your own peace of mind - you need to pull back for a few days and spend some time reading through the core principles and concepts that define the site. Please take this as the good-faith comment that it was intended as. --Ckatz chat spy  08:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, your right you know, I always agree with you, like when you said you were being demoralizing in that tribunal thingy, I agreed of course, I view you as a fountain of useful wisdom, and bask in the warmth of your conversation. as always I find it astonishing that as an admin you set such a poor example of making a newcomer feel welcome. It's not so much that you just bite, it's that you amputate discussion rather than fostering it. (are you still doing that admin thing ? I haven't checked your page since we first met, sometime I really should bother to) And I do so love, adore, am ecstatic to hear you mention my secret fetish, reading the core values. It makes me feel like a little kid all over again it really does, when this comes flashing back to me...

"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." By your own definition, the changes to the lead did not have consensus as they were reverted by at least two editors. --Ckatzchatspy 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." is not my own definition it is Wikipedia's own definition. Perhaps you don't recognize it. The original from the 'What consensus is' section of the Wikipedia:CONSENSUS article says the following... "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. "


 * Yes, I think we should all pay close and careful attention to guidelines, it does pave the way for these intimate little moments doesn't it ? I shall take your excellent advice, we all should, and If I may offer some in return to thank you, possibly you might read something space related ? not necessarily as long and boring as the ISS page, but give it a go, please, because I do, I really do, look forward to the day that you'll use this talkpage for discussing anything at all to do with the ISS itself, I really do look forward to that day, just any little fact, a little poppet of trivia, anything at all, maybe just 'its shiny' or 'it's big' I'll welcome it with open arms, I shall embrace it and welcome it into existance with the pride of a doctor delivering a baby, I really will. Penyulap   talk 10:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This talk page is completely out of control, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Can somebody help? Mlm42 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I came over after seeing the notice at AN/I, having no history here (but being a spaceflight fan for decades!) I think the problem here is an over concentration on the process of re-writing the article, and not much attention on the content. I've read it through and it seems pretty good to me - I guess it wouldn't be a featured article if it weren't! Perhaps a way forward would be for anyone who can see an error in the article to point this out and suggest a re-wording to correct it? I don't think a wholesale re-write is called for, but even mature articles can be carefully tweaked to buff them up still further. So, can we name any key errors and if so what can be done to correct them? Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  22:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got it right spot on, but it's not the article, it's just the lead, nothing else, a few editors, and especially ones who have no content related suggestions (the emptier the vessel the more noise it makes) are hindering an update to the lead. I'm not pointing out what I consider obvious errors to empty vessels who appoint themselves as middle men. I'll discuss it with any editor who demonstrates an open mind, even a newbie, I'm all for discussing things(have you noticed, go on tell me), but these 'editors who provide me with amusement' are hindering the work. They can't find em, so I'm not going to play games with them, either roll up your sleeves and help out, or get thee out of the way so other editors can. The major additions and new sections I have written from scratch are up to muster so I can't see the endless croaking out 'prose' 'prose' 'prose' 'I don't like it' to be helpful here. Penyulap   talk 05:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * On re-reading that, I'd like to stress I don't mean you, Kim Dent-Brown are an empty vessel, I was not referring to your talk of an error in the lead, only previous discussions in general.  Penyulap   talk 05:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article update and Lead cleanup is not actually the end of the work, there are more new sections I am putting in, and probably cleaning up things to shorten the article if necessary, the current new sections are passing well, it's a shame the lead is the 'great untouchable' due to OWN Penyulap   talk
 * Can you specify an error in the lead and suggest an improvement? Then we can discuss content, rather than process. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  08:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How about this Kim, stuff discussing it, my discussions on the talkpage are 'unproductive'. So I've just gone ahead and fixed 4 Major errors in the lead that the wikiproject spaceflight member who admitted he can't find a single one, has been reading over and over again for weeks if not months. Now, would you please be kind and gentle, I mean you Kim, not the 'editors who provide me great amusement' please assist this new to the ISS article editor, by discussing if the parts inventory from STS-135 is actually quite as important as some american media outlet he has probably been the victim of is saying it is. Forget my edits, the first three will stand forever unreverted. The last will need someone capable of research. It's perfectly correct of course, but someone had challenged it before, and I just ignored it as a result (I think you might see, I'm not into this confrontation crap, throwing down 'challenges' in the edit summary like Mlm42 does.) So as I am slamming the door so to speak, colds7ream, or anyone else who reads will be needed for that. But that new inventory section won't last, and that is a good editor. Penyulap  talk 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done for being bold and for spending time on content. Now you've done so I can see what you mean by errors - I think on the whole these look like content which was true at one point but, as time has passed, needs putting into the past rather than the future tense for example. I'm not sure I'd have called all of these errors myself - more issues of currency. If any of your material 'needs further research' then it might be reverted by other editors unless it's plainly minor and uncontroversial, so don't be downhearted if this happens. One other thing I'd suggest: it will make your own life much easier if your edit summaries were less biting. Please keep them neutral - those on your most recent edits to the article were not friendly and collegial, and this may explain some of your recent difficulties. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kim Dent-Brown, I'm not being at all sarcastic when I say I like you and your nice and kind, thanks. I was just proving my point really, the editors that are hindering my work on the lead are completely unjustified, and always will be. Those dated how should I say it ? oh, 'issues of currency' Well that lead section has been outdated for more than two years. not weeks, not months YEARS. Thats more than 6 times longer than I've been an editor on wiki. And these guys are trying to stop me touching it ? after 300 edits, and new good sections of FA quality, they're protecting what ? oh go read my userpage for a laugh. I said it long ago. Anyhow, when a conversation with Ckatz is turning into a conversation between Doctor Smith from lost in Space (Ckatz) and Dame Edna Everage (me) then I think their insanity has taken too much of a toll on me and I need a break. I'll still try to make myself available like if someone wants to ask me which space station had a One MEGAWATT Laser weapon Launched as a Base block, which could eject practice targets from a magazine and sneak up on targets with optics instead of radar and stuff(the payload failed), or how Armstrong's Line that he was meant to deliver as he stepped onto the moon was actually 'One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind, but he got it wrong, pressure, happens...anyhow, thanks. Penyulap   talk 11:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sightings, rusty colored apperance
In reference to my recent edit: the first time I observed the ISS it started out as a little dot and then became a very bright reddish-orange "blob" (for lack of a better word). Mars colored. I assume this is because it was passing thru the earth's penumbra, appearing this color for the same reason total lunar eclipses appear orange or reddish-orange. However, what I don't know if this was because of special viewing circumstances, or is typical. Feedback is appreciated. I would revert, because I think I should have brought this up here before changing the article, but I'll leave that up to someone else for now. --TimL (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you haven't observed an overhead passage of the ISS, try it! It's really cool! --TimL (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't say I've noticed this myself; in any case, without a source, this is original research, so I've removed it from the article. Mlm42 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll look into this some more. Probably not notable. --TimL (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Short NASA ISS docu videos
I found these short nasa documentary clips which talk about different aspects of zhe ISS. I thought that at least a few could be used in some way here. I am slightly concerned about POV issues regarding a subset of these clips but still think they may prove useful. Thoughts? --U5K0 (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

space based solar power demo
does anyone knows the status of the proposed experiment described here ? http://registration.istdayton.com/Briefings/In-Space%20Laser%20Power%20Beaming%20Concept(HBCU%20forum).pdf seems to be mentioned since 2000 as laser broom--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English.
The language variant used in this article is a topic that seems to have created tension between some editors in the past.

This poll is simply to investigate which demographic editors are wanting to write this article for.

Simply majority consensus / first past the post has been asked for before. It's in the archives. There are still many who are not happy with the article, leading to occasional calls for change, and extra work for editors. Personally I have no opinion on the Variant/dialect used, however, I do see that it is a possible source of ongoing tensions.

As significant time and effort is put into the discussion of language used in this article, I'd like to contribute to a reduction in this workload in a constructive way. Rather than have another drive to address these concerns in the same way, and to avoid creating workload for people outside the ISS editors, I'll open a long-term poll.


 * No time-frame is given, and no call for change is given by myself or implied. This is simply to gather peoples preferences and ideas. It may help guide change later though, if someone wants to call for change based on a tally or changes that occur to the tally over the life of the article.


 * You are invited to state a preference for just one language if you want.
 * You are invited to say you don't care if you want to.
 * You are invited to rank the dialects/variants in order (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) of preference if you want.
 * You are invited to rank more than one dialect equally, for example, you can state a first preference and two second preferences if you want.


 * No request for changed behavior is given or implied. Editors are invited to contribute in any way they can, regardless of their language abilities. There are plenty of editors willing to assist with grammar, punctuation and dialect without needing help from the Wikipedia English embassy, or is it this one http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Embassy these embassies are designed amongst other things, to help people contribute to Wikipedia when they are otherwise unable to do so because of language barriers, I've used them before.

At some point when there are enough responses to warrant, I'll tally the results using the Ranked Pairs system, which after a study of systems that might apply best to a talkpage/article which has fallen into this situation, is the best I can find. (without asking the higher-ups for help, I'm assuming here we can all be mature enough to find some common ground ourselves).


 * Ranked pairs is a voting system that selects a single winner using votes that (may or may not) express preferences. When a voter does not give a full list of preferences they are assumed, for the purpose of the count, to prefer the language they have ranked over all other languages.
 * Other voting systems that take into account preferences, like two round and Exhaustive ballot wouldn't take into account the views of people who have been so upset that they have expressed their discontent and left without returning. Ranked pairs allows these strong views to be weighed fairly in a poll.
 * The first-past-the-post system may discourage some people from expressing their sincere views. I'd prefer people express themselves freely.

Now and then, I'll tally the results again if someone asks, or there have been a good few more. If I leave in a few years, someone else is welcome to do so.

If this problem is alleviated by the creation of separate Wikipedias for EN-GB and EN-American and EN-INT Wikipedia, please don't use this poll's results on those new article pages. (If separate wikis were created, I'd for one be happy to contribute to all 3, I already actually contribute on foreign wikis regularly where I can't speak a single word of the language, it's all good).

As for my vote, as I've said I have no opinion, but will abstain anyhow, I'd rather offer impartial assistance to discover and repair the cause of the discontent, and I understand there may well be people who wouldn't want it fixed, but would rather things continue as they are.

As a footnote, I'd like everyone to consider the alt descriptions for images, which are for the blind. At the moment, I haven't been able to keep up with these on the new images for this article. Penyulap  talk 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed several times (try searching the archives of this page), and seems to come up every so often. At the end of the day, I think it doesn't really matter which variety of English we use, as long as it's consistent. Since this article has essentially used British English since it's inception (about 10 years ago), I don't see any reason to change it. If it were to change from British English, it would be to American English, since the Americans have the biggest stake in the station compared to other English-speaking nations (and I don't know what "International English" is..). Anyway, since this doesn't change the content of the article, I don't think it's really worth wasting our breath over it. Mlm42 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the above, there have been repeated discussions over the matter, and no sound rationale for change has evolved. While I'm certain that your intentions are good, the methodology you have outlined above will not resolve the matter but instead only drag it out over an extended period. --Ckatz chat spy  17:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus, as we all know, Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Mlm42 (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ckatz, I thought you were too busy to help out ? I asked you, specifically, by name, about the lead section more than two weeks ago, and you've been busy editing most every day since, I see you have no time for discussing the ISS material, that's ok, I understand, but I'm glad to see your almost instant response about ENG:VAR, that's very helpful. Penyulap   talk 19:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * that's very helpful.. hmm.. assuming Penyulap isn't being sarcastic, I agree, it was helpful? And editors are free to take part in any discussion that they wish.. we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs, after all. Mlm42 (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * Mlm42, this is confusing me, first you want to talk about ENGLISH, but now you don't ? I don't understand. You said here in the edit summary, the following

(cur | prev) 00:09, 28 June 2011 Mlm42  (talk | contribs) (172,559 bytes) (program -> programme. Article is written in British English; to challenge this, use the talk page) (undo)
 * I'm not challenging anything, I have made that crystal clear. I'm happy for it to be English or Maori or Hillbilly. I'm simply following your suggestion to use the talkpage. I'm simply asking questions, would you prefer I stop ? You mention 10 years ago, are you sure that's the last change ?

(cur | prev) 07:52, 28 June 2011 Penyulap  (talk | contribs) (141,258 bytes) (→ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English.:  new section) (undo)
 * Have I struck a raw nerve here by responding to your request ? I'm getting an almost instant response on this issue, whereas ISS issues go literally un-noticed for months. Penyulap   talk 19:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (I'm responding quickly because I'm sitting at my computer) I'm also confused. If you're not challenging the ENG:VAR, then why did you start this section? It's not like this issue hasn't been brought up and discussed at length multiple times in the past.. (archived discussions can be easily searched using the tool at the top of the page). Mlm42 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, please stop with the backhand comments and slights. We disagreed on an edit, it's done, move on. Your comments and over-reaction to our limited interactions border on the tedious, as far as I'm concerned, and are completely out of proportion to the handful of edits you're focussing on. Again, please move on. --Ckatz chat spy  19:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, lets move on, I think we were up to two weeks and three days ago where I was asking you for input over the lead, so, would you like to answer that question for me ? Penyulap   talk 20:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I move to close this discussion, unless someone actually expresses a desire to change from the British English system which has been established on this article for quite a while. Mlm42 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you and Ckatz trying to stifle discussion within just hours of this post ? who don't you want to comment on it ? what is your agenda here ? Penyulap   talk 01:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Penyulap, you said yourself that you don't care what version of English is used. Nobody here has objected to British English. British English has been used on this page for years. Why are we talking about it? I don't think many people want to have this discussion, let alone a 4 month long vote. I genuinely feel it's a waste of editor time - especially since nobody appears to be upset with the way things currently are! You have credited me with starting this discussion, and now you are getting upset that I'm trying to stifle it.
 * Sigh. Mlm42 (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

At first, I just couldn't resist putting quotation marks around this one,

but then I realize it's pure Gold !! "Nobody here has objected to British English." Penyulap  talk 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By "here", I mean recently on the talk page... Are you objecting to the use of British English, Penyulap? Because so far you haven't indicated that you object. Mlm42 (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've been crystal clear on the subject my dear Mlm42, It doesn't bother me, it never has bothered me, it never will bother me, my only concern is it over-excites you, and other editors, I want to help you with this problem, I opened this poll to find out a little more about the demographic the tool server won't show me. Is this ok with you ? can we stay calm and limit the calls for closure of discussion to say, every few days, rather than every few hours ? please, pretty please ? Penyulap   talk 06:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

ISS article should use American English. It's mostly an American project, there is no British module, Australian module, NZ module, Irish module etc; as Europe/ESA isn't Britain, Britain's contribution is less than one module. The Canadian contribution is one module, an Arm. The only other country aside from the US with many components is Russia, which isn't an English-speaking locality. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above poster, since more than $100 billion of the $160 billion cost comes from the US, it is primarily a US project. The UK has a policy against human spaceflight and is not a partner member of the ESA in the ISS, so it makes little sense to use the UK spellings in this article, since there is no support for the project from that country. The reason posted for why this is, is that the article originally was written in UK English, and despite urgings from various members of the Wikipedia community to bring the language used to better reflect the national origins of the subject mater the language has not been updated. This is espeically jarring, since most of the primary sources for the article are NASA websites, which, of course, use US English. The current state of the article goes against Wikipedia policy (the equivalent would be if the Oscar Wilde article used US English, despite it's subject having a UK origin). 72.207.232.42 (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please recognise that the choice of language should not depend on the amount of money a government spends. UK English is, in practice, a much more comfortable format for most users of English outside North America. Having said that, however, I do like your point about NASA being the biggest "source" for sources. It's not part of Wikipedia policy, but that point should probably override most else for this article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the article should not be British or american it is not read by just one country or the other. It should be nothing. If you say it should be american because america paid for it then change this page http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationale_Raumstation to be american too. Why is it British anyway ? change all the pages to british if they are the only ones interested in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.132 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ISS purpose
I've noticed that a lot of people have been talking about ISS as a diplomatic factor lately. I looked it up and have found that it seems to stem from the Obama National Space Policy and subsequent NASA and administration documents. The relevant part of the National Space Policy says the following: Should this be included in the purpose section even though it's a later addition to the purpose of Station? If so, in what way should it be added? --U5K0 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've added this to the end of the first paragraph of the Purpose section:

Featured article quality has deteriorated.
This article was promoted only 18 months ago but it is currently at the top of the featured article clean up listing. Using the Featured article criteria as a guide I see multiple problems with the article as it currently stands: This notice is following the proper procedure of featured article review by first posting a list of issues on the talk page of the article before actually starting the review. If these issues cannot be resolved in a reasonable amount of time (30-45 days) then a review will be initiated. The FA criteria not mentioned here were not checked so the possibility of other issues exist. Brad (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1a: There are multiple short paragraphs and sections consisting of only one or two sentences or a single paragraph in the case of sections. There are bulleted lists that should be turned into prose. Cleanup tag is present.
 * 1c: There are eight dead links to sources and several citation needed tags. There are multiple "update needed" tags. There is an over reliance on a single source of information (NASA) and several sources that are questionable in meeting the requirement of "high-quality and reliable".
 * 2b: There are many short sections that are creating a long and complicated TOC in addition to the problems they're creating with criteria 1a. IMO the article needs an entire section overhaul.
 * 2c: Citations are chaotic in their consistency. There is a mixture of date formatting (2011-03-25 vs 25 March 2011 etc), bare urls, and missing publisher information.
 * MOS: Fails MOS:Images for overcrowding, stacking, pics pushing down into sections below, text sandwiching and sometimes overwhelmingly large displays. Overall there are 49 media files (not including flag icons) consisting of pics, diagrams and video. Fails MOS:LINK for overlinking of common terms or items that are not helpful to the reader for understanding more about the article. Fails WP:EXT for external links.
 * Thanks for the review and message, Brad - nice to see someone doing this properly! I've made a start at addressing some of the issues with the article, do please let me know what you think! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits so far are in the right direction. The article is on my watch list so any other concerns you might have I'll see here. Brad (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

My apologies to all concerned for my newbie use of eng:var:spiderman. Here is my own wp:gibberish translation, apologies my language skills are still not up to scratch.
 * 1a:Examples: Break up the pressurized modules table. Once docked, things fall off the docking table. The pressurized modules need separate sections on the TOC, written in prose (I meant paragraphs, sorry). Microgravity doesn't belong in station structure (like 'France' doesn't belong on a bill of materials for the Eiffel tower). Consider collapsing life on board into station operations.
 * 1b:Examples: Context, which space station is it? 4th/12th (not soviet, but in relation to all space stations). Currency for pressurized modules, there are 4 new ones going up soon enough. Comprehensive, no plan for the USOS de-orbit.
 * 1d:Criticism section needs a rewrite.
 * 1e:No major problems(after discussion with my mentor). Colds7ream changed the article to British English, his stated preference, without discussion. It made this article differ to the space station articles on either side of this one, and all of its sub-articles, and every linked article I've seen so far. Because of my perception problems (I see past, present, future as pretty much the same) I saw this, and the friction it causes for so many editors as a problem, however as it is so spread out over time I now see it is not actually an issue, just a more trivial undercurrent of discontent.
 * Not sure where this one goes, 1b, 2b or 4. Science could be broken up from purpose and have a top level TOC section. If we can't expand on science here, the No.1 sub-article will continue to suffer.

I will be glad to assist anyone for the reasons listed here. If this is a problem, or anyone doesn't want me to help other editors, feel free to let me know. Penyulap  talk 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Solar eclipse from ISS


I found this picture of the 2006 solar eclipse from the ISS. I was thinking of putting into the purpuse section. Comments?

U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool, I like it. I had been thinking for like two or three months or more, that we could add in all the cool pictures that we find, fix them up with their alt texts and captions, and then wrap comment tags around all but one of them, so one picture shows at a time, then when anyone cares to, they just change the comment tags to change the pictures and keep them nice and fresh. So long as each picture is well presented, I can't see any kind of problem with this. The article changes, but the quality remains constant, and it wouldn't matter how frequently it does so.


 * I think the shadow looks slightly ominous. That matches the way we humans normally feel about eclipses (through all time). Penyulap   talk 14:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ISS Media Library
Should we include a subsection to Life on board? There's this document detailing what's available as of 2008. I also recall Steven Swanson including Serenity and Firefly to the library.--DrWho42 (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * DrWho ! Good to see you again ! I left a detailed response here. Just WP:BB I say, and blame the cat if anything goes wrong. I suspect it already, looks like it planned the whole thing from the start. Do not trust that cat anyone ! Penyulap   talk 23:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, folks...
Hi everyone - just to let you all know that I'm far too busy with final year medicine to be editing anytime soon, so crack on with whatever edits you like; I won't have a go, and frankly, if a bunch of us couldn't keep the article up to scratch for a measly 18 months, I can't really be bothered anyway. Colds7ream (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You are not irreplaceable. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Er, thanks, I think - I hadn't seen that before. It's just that, looking through the comments, lots of people seemed to be waiting for input from me, and I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to offer it for a while - sorry. Colds7ream (talk) 06:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your work here has set the highest standard colds7ream, and even though we will miss your work and assistance, I know you have more important work to do saving lives in the real world. Although this is 'just an article' we will do our best, I will do my best, and wish you best of luck and look forward to your stopping by and any further assistance you can give in future in your time off. Thank you colds7ream, sincerely. Penyulap   talk 00:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Btw, the article is not getting any younger
Where are we going with updating this article ? it's OLD. Will anyone update the launch table and corresponding parts of the lead at the very least ? I read through it a week or two ago, and there are ten problems I counted in the first two paragraphs alone. Is anyone willing to discuss this ? I personally still won't bother fixing this crap for a while longer, or until Colds7ream wants to state his intentions. For anyone who wants to get some practice updating an article like this, with no guarantee it won't simply be rolled back to the smelly 2 y.o. state, here is some 'things to do' ideas.
 * The station will not be complete in any year that you can name, so hose the 2012. For that matter it's a good idea to dump the phrases 'being assembled' and 'expected to be finished' because they always get hammered. Right now, I think it's on the 'assembled' flipflop.
 * Pop a few more modules on the launch schedule.
 * Break up the pressurized modules table (that's a lot of work really)
 * Hey did anyone realize that they do science up there ? No, really they do, it's true. They don't just sleep and eat like the TOC says they do. Maybe the TOC could be spruced up hey ?
 * The planned final module, the Russian laboratory module, is expected to launch in 2012. sure.
 * The ISS is a synthesis of several space station projects that includes the American Freedom, the Soviet/Russian Mir-2, the European Columbus and the Japanese Kibō. never did like that, never will. Freedom, MIR 2 and columbus (thanks guys) are all space station projects. Kibo never was.
 * The financing, research capabilities and technical design of the ISS programme have been criticised because of the high cost...on planet America. Penyulap   talk 13:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, Penyulap. If I might make a modest suggestion though? I find that feedback tends to get a better reception when editors follow WP:Civility. This message is rife with passive-aggressive language. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob, I'm describing the current state of the article, not the biggest contributor, colds7ream. There is a big difference. I don't think colds7ream needs any sprucing up, or modules added to his launch schedule. :) He's quite up-to-date :) Penyulap   talk 11:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your message contains unnecessary insinuating and sarcastic language that is clearly directed at the editors. This isn't necessary to make your points. You can communicate in a civil manner and achieve the same ends. But I didn't particularly want to engage in a lengthy debate in the matter, so I'll exit stage left. Good luck with your suggestions. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't an internet forum, but LOL just the same.--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 14:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Future modules curiously placed
I think the current section titled Module Launch Schedule shuld be placed directly after Pressurised modules just like Cancelled modules. Putting it in the same section as docked spacecraft makes very little sence to me. We're talking about modules, not spply or crew transport spacecraft. I think it should be moved in the way outlined. Any objections? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at this, the more I believe that the entire structure of the article needs a reorganisation. Here's my proposal:

1 Purpose 2 Origin 3 Station structure 3.1 Assembly 3.2 Pressurised modules 3.2.1 Module Launch Schedule 3.3 Unpressurised elements (add a short summary of the structural elements moved out of the structure section) 3.4 Cancelled modules and components 4 Station systems 4.1 Life support 4.2 Power supply 4.3 Thermal Control System 4.4 Communications & computers 4.5 Robotic arms 5 Station operations 5.1 Orbit control 5.1.1 Sightings 5.2 Life on board (New section - Research activity) 5.2.1 Microgravity 5.3 Expeditions 5.4 Docking 5.4.1 Currently docked 5.4.2 Docking schedule 5.5 Mission control centres 6 Safety aspects 6.1 Space environment 6.1.1 Orbital debris 6.2 Maintainence (rename ro Repairs) 7 Politics 7.1 Criticism 7.2 Legal aspects 7.3 Cost 7.4 End of mission and deorbit 8 References 9 External links

We could also rephrase one or more of the section/subsection titles if apropriate. Thoughts, criticism, praise? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hell yeah !!! I love it, brilliant, finally someone has come up with a logical place for sightings and microgravity. Congradulations ! I am still leaning towards putting microgravity and space environment into purpose as it's 99% of the scientific research and the whole point of the station, but man, I'm just thrilled to see some thought put into this one. COOL!!!! Station systems, a work of genius right there, Orbit control and sightings a match made in heaven, yes.


 * Ok for the launch schedule, it's got a curious placement at the moment, and it's sortof up in the air, because the pressurized modules table has so got to die, it's not encyclopedic looking at all, it has to be made into text and paragraphs, with the pics scattered about like every other article. Like, it was good back in 2001 when all the modules were on a launch schedule, and halfway through it was sortof cool, but hey, they are mostly all up there now, so lets so not have a table eh ? Yeah, a lot of work I know. heeelp !


 * I'd swap your 4.1 and 4.5 as LS is more important than the rest...


 * I was placing this tally "25 Soyuz, 41 Progress, 2 ATV, 2 HTV and 35" right next to the launch tables, so as to make the busiest editors who come to update the launch tables itch to update that one as well, rather than have it hidden in a corner where it'll go stale on currency. Case and point, hey, it's like 6 months out of date right now eh ? Don't worry about helping on that one(it will fix itself believe me), use your efforts on breaking up pressurized modules, or here is another headache, I've got this link table I stole, and need help translating it, I'll post it up... Penyulap   talk 14:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Research activity, you'd mean Science yes ? I agree it needs it's own section, I mean, thats the point of it for the Japanese. I had it before, where Purpose was separated into three parts, I want to restore it that way, and see what you'd think about it, it would put science second to top level, but top level is certainly a good idea too, no need to hide science away in any other section it can be by itself if you want. Penyulap   talk 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My thought here was not to put a whole lot of information about the Science into the Life on board section. The idea was to describe how the crew spend most of their time. So a description of the research from the crew's POV. As for a general description of what sort of science is done on station and major research contributions made so far, it makes sence to put it in the purpuse part as a seperate section. Remind me, what are the other sections again (and how do we know that these are the 3 main reasons for the existance of ISS)?--U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 17:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's been a lot of shuffling, and the use of a limit to the depth of the TOC, how does it look to you ? Penyulap   talk 14:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)