Talk:List of Ingenuity flights/Archive 1

Short lede section, Totals table
Yes, I agree, the article must have a lede section, just like any article.

Regarding the "Totals" table: I have never liked it very much, because most of the numbers do not appear in any published source. The numbers result from editors' "routine calculation", but many, many such calculations are needed to show the most recent result, and errors can happen (and have). I think the use of so many personal calculations in a single presentation violates the spirit of the "routine calculation" provision of the No Original Research policy. The most important total statistics are published in the "Flight Log" of the JPL helicopter demo website: #flights, total distance, total time. Our flight list shows the sol number for each flight, so that total is already present. The distinction between totals in "tech demo" and "tech operations" does not seem very important to me, nor does the percentage statistics of "work done above" those phases. I think the Totals table was put into the article only because a JPL writer published it once--one time--and (a very few) Wikipedia editors have been updating it manually ever since using "routine calculation". I would not object to a smaller Totals table, showing only the numbers regularly published by JPL/NASA in their "Flight Log". DonFB (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

We have two options now, continue with the flight totals or split the table into the two mission phases and write totals at bottom. I can remove percentage if you like all other are just json values and subtraction of json values or automatic update values (sols) and there a big improvement in flight  totals after getting json values error are extremely rare except failingto update @DonFB Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Photos
We should consider whether or not it is useful to put an (animated or still) image in the entry for every flight. I raise the question because the images all look very similar and do not distinguish one flight from another in any significant way. Also, the animation is distracting while trying to read the text. (Even though it is my suggestion that the picture could go in the Summary cell--that may not be a good idea.) The other option, an additional column for Images, has the serious disadvantage of forcing a very bothersome need to scroll horizontally. I want to suggest the idea instead of a curated Gallery of selected images--not the "kitchen sink" approach taken in the main article. The Gallery could include only a few animations (probably 3 or 4 at most) and a few well-chosen color pictures that illustrate important or visually appealing aspects of the mission (EDL debris, for example). DonFB (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

OK please dothe cleanup I'm going to do the same for main article  now. @DonFB Chinakpradhan (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Submission
, let's wait to submit it for review again after we (and any other editors) agree that it's ready. DonFB (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * why they are doing this go and correct ingenuity page directly offah @DonFB. ok now trying to remove the twitter refs Chinakpradhan (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * isnt the totals format right now??@DonFB no separate table Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it does not work as part of the main table. It is not obvious, for example, that first column (387) means total Sols since deployment, or (if a reader does know it is Sols) why it's a different number than total mission Sols. Altitude and Speed cells would remain blank, which looks strange. A separate Totals table will not be ambiguous and might still be added to or improved, but all the items should be clearly identified in a reliable published source(s). DonFB (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ok Chinakpradhan (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see you changed it while I was posting, but I still think it should be separate. For example, the first column is confusing, because it seems like it is the date of a flight, when it is really the date on which the totals are current. The Altitude and Speed cells are blank, which looks strange. It will also be more difficult for editors to update with new flights, because they will have to insert data while preserving the totals row. DonFB (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

, thanks for removing non official tweets. I want JPL, NASA tweets to remain in article; I think they are acceptable. Let's wait to resubmit. I plan to look more closely at other existing refs, and to do some revision to lede. Flights after #21 need photos. I don't plan to create animations, but can download raw still b&w photos. DonFB (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

For now I am not making anime since from 22-27 as they are just 5 frames per flight and flight 28 needs Heavy processing toremove dark spots. @DonFB currently a topic has arisen  you please extract  data from it an publish in main article's flight  profile. I can't do as all info in that is good so I can't distinguish to determine what to publish from this and I saw you get increased loads in correcting if I go for long  edits from this status report do just for this good status report  you publish the data. Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want I can upload for the reason for showing the detoriation effect of nav cam images I have the anime in stock ready already but hesitate to upload Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It's like this see the dark spots Chinakpradhan (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You said "a topic has arisen", but not clear to me what you refer to. If you have animation of newer flight(s), it could be used in the List article. DonFB (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Topic is the new status update its big and important so if I add to main article it will become  bulky. Its so big status report that I can't find what to write on Wikipedia and what not to write. Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Along with that I answered your thought on b/w images @DonFB that we should halt b/w images uploading for flights after 21 till more images arrive and the nav cam dust clears up. Navcam is too dirty now. (I actually said too things at once sorry for that) Chinakpradhan (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look at new status tonight.DonFB (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @DonFB i think its complete to be resubmitted Chinakpradhan (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

flight 29
New pictures of nav cam are available with time stamp Sol 465 LMST 15:39 ( much later time of the day than last flights, maybe due to higher battery state of charge). The date is 11th of June. Schrauber5 (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Done Schrauber5 (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Template for Conversion of Mars Mission Time to UTC
I created a template to convert Mars time (as given on the nav cam pictures) to Earth time.  Since it is not used(e.g. here) it was suggested for deletion. Does anyboy thinks it should be used here? Schrauber5 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

List of records
I added a "list of records" section as a one-stop overview of the records. This is intended to (1) avoid searching for the highlighted records in the flight list, and (2) see the all the records displayed next to each other. It is just a matter of convenience. I hope this explains the utility of the "list of records" section. Thanks. Abjad (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Unverified UTC times
At present, the UTC time for only seven flights can be verified in reliable published sources that I am aware of, namely flights: #4,5,6,7,9,14,19. Six other flights have UTC times that were forecast, but not confirmed, in NASA/JPL websites: flights #2,3,11,12,13,15. All other flights have no sourcing for their UTC times, despite the fact that some of those flights are footnoted--but with sources that do not contain the purported information. One or perhaps two unofficial and unapproved Wikipedia templates have been used in private userspace to generate most if not all the UTC times in the list, possibly including the flights for which reliable published sourcing is actually available. I have used the templates myself, and can see they generate data that conforms to published results. I have, reluctantly, inserted the results into the article, a practice I do not want to continue, because I do not fully understand the mechanics of the templates, and because information in Wikipedia should not be created "off the books" as it were. I am not a template expert and am not able to create adequate documentation to make the templates available for editors to use. I believe that readers as well as editors must be able to see the source for such basic information for all of the flights, not just a handful. I learned that a discussion of the templates was held here: and they were deleted from the template space. Either they or a newly created template should be made available to editors, or the currently unsourced UTC times should be removed from the article unless and until published sources, or an approved template, are available to verify them. DonFB (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Update: After careful study, I have adapted and published a template Marscalc available to editors. I'm adding it to the article for each flight, while retaining existing references for UTC. DonFB (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Flight 45
Grundspeed was 6 m/s acording to flight log. P ev (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

One Martian year
Is it appropriate to mention the passing of one Martian orbit, marking, for example, endurance through all seasons? TomS TDotO (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting of table
The table is very long. I would suggest to split the table. E.g. into years (2021,22,23) or mars seasons or by another criteria. Schrauber5 (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is indeed long, but still workable. I suspect that the list isn't going to get a lot longer, perhaps when Ingenuity finally comes to rest, we can have a look at it. Ex nihil  (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Collapsing by years could be a solution. DonFB (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)