Talk:List of Salyut expeditions

Change of format
I have reverted an edit to "create same format as List of International Space Station Expeditions and List of Mir Expeditions, remove red links & crews that failed to orbit or dock, as these are no expedition crews". Whilst perhaps a standard format across the articles would be a good idea, there should be some discussion as to which format should be used, as I feel that the format used in this article is better than that used in the ISS and Mir articles. In addition, the redlinks are appropriate, as they encourage the creation of those articles, see WP:REDLINK. The crews that failed to reach the station would have been expeditions if they had reached the station, so I feel they should be included, as long as they are sufficiently distinguished from the successful expeditions. I feel that they were sufficiently distinguished. The addition of flags violates WP:MOSFLAG, as all the cosmonauts were Soviet, so there is no need to distinguish them from other nationalities. Finally, the editor changed all dates and spellings from the British to American format, which is a flagrant violation of both WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOSNUM, as there is absolutely no relevance to the United States, and hence the date formats and dialects should not be changed. -- G W … 16:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the redlinks and the flags. Also, the date formats are OK in their current format. But I feel the overal format used in the ISS and Mir articles is better, and that format should be applied on this article. Furthermore, the crews that failed to dock are not listed as expedition crews in the reference . I think it is sufficient to include these crews in the List of human spaceflights to Salyut space stations. Finally, English is not my native language and the English I use is mostly related to the United States, so it would be nice if you showed me where ENGVAR is violated in my edits, next to the dates :) --Krikmeizter (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the other format is better, which specific features do you prefer? If you check the dates, the crews that did not dock/failed to orbit must have been expeditions as the station was unmanned at the time. They were just not numbered as they failed to reach the station. ENGVAR relates to the changing of spellings of words between two different dialects, for example "programme" (British spelling, as used here) to "program" (US spelling). There are others, but that is the main one that I noticed. -- G W … 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a feature thing, in the ISS and Mir articles the same columns are used, and the same info about expedition crews is mentioned. It's just to create one unified format for the lists of expeditions to all space stations. In my opinion this makes the lists easier to read and understand, someone is familiar with the format used when reading the ISS or Mir article after reading this article or vice verse. And if expedition patches would ever be included in this article, like in the ISS article, the article becomes too wide to fit onto a 1024x768 screen (assuming all text besides the remarks are not wrapped; wrapped text looks very ugly to me), and remarks would only be visible after scrolling to the right. By splitting the list into one table per Salyut space station it is possible to place remarks as 'failed to dock' or 'crew killed' underneath every table. Finally, do you have any reference stating that crews who failed to dock/orbit were to become expedition crews? It just sounds strange to me, listing crews that never actually entered a Salyut space station as an expedition crew. --Krikmeizter (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In all cases the stations were empty at the time of scheduled arrival, so the crew that failed to dock must have been the principal (ie expedition) crew of the station. I don't think there were expedition patches for Salyut missions. Whilst I agree that in principle standardisation of the general table format is a good idea, I think that there are perhaps some features from this format that should feed back into the others. -- G W … 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the crews that failed to dock were to become expedition crews, as the stations were unmanned at launch of these crews. But they never 'expedited' the stations, and remained Soyuz crews, as I see it, and should only be mentioned in List of human spaceflights to Salyut space stations. Also, there is a difference between principal and expedition crew. For example, The Soyuz T-3 crew was the principal crew of Salyut 7 (i.e. Soyuz T-3 docked to an unmanned Salyut 7), but their mission was only a short-duration visit. The Soyuz T-3 crew is also not listed as expedition in the reference . About the format: What features do you think should feed back into the ISS and Mir articles? In my opinion applying the format of the ISS and Mir articles to this article only gives a different look to the article (same look as the other articles), the actual data in the article remains the same. That means there is no problem in changing the format to one table for every Salyut space station, as long as the remarks are mentioned, and the date format and the British spelling are unchanged. --Krikmeizter (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will have a think about it and get back to you tomorrow morning. -- G W … 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in replying. I think that since the crews that failed to dock were meant to be expedition crews, they should be listed, but it should be made very clear that they failed to dock. Timeline of spaceflight still lists launch failures, STS-51-L is in List of space shuttle missions. This reference lists T-3 as being an expedition crew. I think that a remarks field should be included, as this allows some brief notes on the crew or expedition to be incorporated into the table. What is the advantage of splitting into multiple tables? I think that a single table split into sections for each station looks better, and is easier to read, than multiple ones. I also fail to see the advantage of restating the time zone in every single row, when once in the header would be sufficient. -- G W … 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the crews that failed to dock should not be listed as expedition crews, but when they are very clearly distinguished with red backgrounds, it's ok. Removing the remarks column has two advantages: 1) Text in other columns does not get wrapped (Again, I think wrapped text, like in the 'Flight up' column, looks ugly) and 2) The look of this article becomes exactly the same as the ISS and Mir ones. When important remarks are no longer present in the table, they should be listed below the table. And that is were multiple tables have the advantage of not needing to scroll way down to remarks below, as remarks kan be listed directly below the table of one Salyut space station. Not needing to scroll way down improves the ease with which someone can read the article, as is also the case when this article has exactly the same format as the ISS and Mir ones. Part of the format in those articles is restating the time zone in every row, that's why I did that in my edit. Whilst this has no real advantage, I think this also has no disadvantage. --Krikmeizter (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" align="right" ! Expedition ! Crew ! Launch (GMT) ! Flight up ! Landing (GMT) ! Flight down ! Duration (days)
 * I'm not sure about splitting the remarks away from the flights. How about if we make the table look something like this:
 * - style="background-color: #efefef" valign="top"
 * colspan=8|
 * colspan=8|

Salyut 1
! rowspan=2 | — ! rowspan=2 | — That also allows the use of a single table for all stations without remarks being lost. As for time zones, maybe that is one area where it would be better to change the other articles rather than this one. -- G W … 21:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * - style="background-color:#ffdddd"
 * Vladimir Shatalov Aleksei Yeliseyev Nikolai Rukavishnikov
 * 23 April 1971 23:54
 * Soyuz 10
 * 25 April 1971 23:40
 * Soyuz 10
 * style="text-align: right"| 2.01
 * - style="background-color:#ffdddd"
 * colspan=6 | Failed to dock
 * Georgi Dobrovolski Vladislav Volkov Viktor Patsayev
 * 6 June 1971 07:55
 * Soyuz 11
 * 30 June 1971 02:16
 * Soyuz 11
 * style="text-align: right"| 23.76
 * colspan=6 | Crew killed during reentry
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * To be honest, the table above looks even worse to me than the one currently in the article. The remarks are sort of split from the flights (different rows), but still in the table, which makes it quite confusing, as I see it. I am still in favor of multiple tables with remarks below the tables. I created the article as I think it should be here. The red rows are explained in the lead section, so that covers all 'failed to dock/orbit' remarks. The other two remarks are listed directly below the corresponding tables, no further away from the flights as in the table above. As for the time zones, why is it better to change the other articles? In my opinion there is no difference between stating the time zone once and restating them every row, both have no real advantages over the other. And while we edit this article, it's easier (less effort) to change the time zones in this article only, instead of having to change them twice in two other articles. --Krikmeizter (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, I've just changed the column widths in the main article, does this improve the text wrapping that you have been experiencing? I'll respond to your other points later. -- G W … 13:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The text wrapping is not improved. With the current column widths dates in some rows get wrapped. The only way to completely prevent text wrapping in a table with remarks is using WP:NOWRAP. To illustrate the problem I created a table below, which has the exact table width as a table with remarks and no wrapped text would have (to display the table width, I used the longest possible text out of each column). By looking at the table below with a 1024x768 screen resolution, you can clearly see that a table with remarks and no wrapped text becomes too wide to fit onto such a screen. --Krikmeizter (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Salyut expeditions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003151820/http://www.astronautix.com/project/salyut7.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/project/salyut7.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The very first visiting crew of Salyut-1 failed to dock. The time from launch to landing is less than 2 days yet total time in space is 2.01 days according to the tabel. Somewhere there's a mistake!Dutchy45 (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)