Talk:Payload specialist

Name
Should this article be at Payload specialist to comply with naming conventions?--Peta 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's a formal title, along with Commander, Pilot, and Mission Specialist (and ISS Commander and ISS Flight Engineer). Payload Specialist Astronauts --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Question
So why don't NASA plan on using any more payload specialists for the rest of the shuttle program's life? Have they given a reason? Stevage 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More info on other functions?
I added these links to pilot, flight engineer and mission commander (took them from Payload Specialist), but I think the links are currently not really helpful (there should be more information about the other functions). It would be nice if someone with better knowledge could fix this, either by adding the space flight related information to those pages or by creating new articles. 84.144.37.193 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
The title "payload specialist" should not be capitalized, just as "lieutenant colonel" should not be, per MOS:MILTERMS and MOS:JOBTITLES. Eleven years ago there may have been different views, as evidenced in the section above (Name). Saying it's a "formal title" nowadays doesn't trump the MoS. Discussion or agreement? Chris the speller  yack  15:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC) There was recently a title conflict between a few people interested in trains and a few interested in MoS (should "narrow gauge" be hyphenated in titles?), and I feel it was important to include both perspectives equally, even though it would have been less contentious with only one. I saw that you posted a notice at MoS, but it's more about potential change to MoS than about this proposed title change. If I'm not mistaken, RMs are listed in a some central location which is more likely to be seen by the generalists (but that might be a wishful-thinking fantasy). Anyway as you say it will ultimately be an RM anyway, so I'm missing the point of spending time greasing skids beforehand. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The MoS is a guideline which is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." JOBTITLES specifically says they "are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically." As used as specific job titles by NASA, they should be capitalized. They should only be lowercase in those rare instances when the term is being used generically (for example, by a journalist in a story about a non-NASA crew member), if and when it comes into common parlance. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also notice the lead sentences of Payload Specialist and Mission Specialist specifically talk about the NASA job titles. If and when the terms truly become generic (can you prove that has happened yet?) the articles will have to be rewritten. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning, "pope" and "cardinal" are used as specific job titles by the Vatican, so they should be capitalized, but Wikipedia has decided not to. The MoS is clear that the title is not capitalized except "when they can be considered to have become part of the name", like "Payload Specialist Smith", or "used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name". Such cases do not appear in these articles. Nearly every week some editor picks up "used generically" and tries to run with it, but that play has been whistled dead. Chris the speller   yack  06:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Any reason this is not an RM? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Having seen discussion from years ago, I thought it might be a good idea to grease the skids first, and this seemed like a good public place for any possible discussion. I brought this up on this talk page and the talk page for "Mission Specialist" and on the talk page for "WikiProject Spaceflight" so all people who might be concerned with it would get a chance for comment; I don't want to sneak this past anyone. If there had been no objections I would have made it an RM. If anyone thinks this is not a good place for discussion, I will close this and do the RM now. Chris the speller   yack  16:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this page could be considered a public place; the only things less public are user talk pages and email. lol.
 * I just wanted the kind of editors who preferred capitalization ten years ago to have an opportunity to have their say, since it had been discussed here before. I didn't expect to get beat up for being considerate of people who might view the issue differently than I do. I don't see how you or any other editor is harmed by bringing it up here again. I'm missing the point of spending time objecting to mentioning the possible change here.  Chris the speller   yack  04:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I thought I was engaged in a good-faith and mutually respectful discussion about process. I certainly didn't mean to beat you up, but it sounds like a good time to withdraw. Best of luck. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris the Speller has this exactly right. A payload specialist is "one who specializes in transporting cargo", no matter that they do so in NASA's employ. Primergrey (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Chris the speller is correct. This is an ordinary, generic usage. Just because an organization uses non-standard capitalization (e.g., my workplace often capitalizes job titles in all usages, such as "Technical Writer–Editor," which is incorrect per almost any style manual, including Wikipedia's), that non-standard usage does not trump consistent typography that we strive for. This type of hyper-capitalization can be found in almost any bureaucratic organization in the English-speaking world. Military (or government in general) and business organizations are notorious, both of which I am involved with. Holy (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: both moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

– "payload specialist" and "mission specialist" are job titles and common nouns, just as "sales manager" is. Wikipedia does not capitalize job titles unless "followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name", per MOS:JOBTITLES. Chris the speller  yack  20:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG talk 05:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Payload Specialist → Payload specialist
 * Mission Specialist → Mission specialist


 * Support as standard application of MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support this move 2601:541:4305:C70:1AB:6C4E:3A37:9F23 (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Only just became aware of these and they are already in the backlog... watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. See discussion. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Supports as standard practice. Nothing exceptional about this job title. Primergrey (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Not proper names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion
Apologies for delaying this one but I needed some time to think! It's borderline IMO, and I thought there was a chance I'd end up opposing.

There is certainly a case for capitalising. This is a particular, titled role. There could in theory be a person on the mission who was a specialist in the mission, so was a mission specialist, but was designated in another primary role... for example, a Mission Commander who had previously served as Mission Specialist (the role) on a similar mission... and so was not serving as a Mission Specialist on this one.

But on reflection, I think this has a lot in common with a military rank such as major general, so for the moment at least it's valid to decap.

Again, apologies for the delay, and I would also support an immediate close and move per the instructions at wp:RM. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Like nom said, it's what the guideline at MOS:JOBTITLES. Hard to see any reason to do otherwise for this one. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reader experience. The MOS is normally correct and we assume it to be so, that is, the onus of proof is on those who wish to depart from it. But it's not set in concrete, or without exceptions, see template:MoS guideline. Andrewa (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but hard to see any improved "reader experience" in deviating, here or almost anywhere else. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree that there are exceptions (most are already outlined) but as far as changing consensus on a guideline, that would need to be done at the guideline's TP. Primergrey (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. But your opinion on capitalisation (expressed in many other places) is I'm sure noted by all. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also note that both of the cited references use lowercase. So it's unanimous. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a note at the Mission Specialist TP directing those who want to weigh in on that page's RM to discuss it here. That can't be right. Primergrey (talk) 03:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's pretty standard for a muti-RM. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the criteria for a multi-RM? Primergrey (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See . There's not much detailed guidance on this. Consolidating multiple related requests on a single page for a consolidated discussion is a longstanding practice that predates my arrival on Wikipedia. I haven't researched this to locate when the practice was initiated and any discussion that led to it, but would imagine the rationale would be a desire for consistency in titling articles. These are both astronaut job titles, and it would seem odd to me to see one capitalized as a proper name, while the other was not. Can you be more specific about why you think discussing these at one central location isn't right? wbm1058 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it makes total sense, but given the resistance often encountered when trying to get consistency across similar articles, I just assumed it wasn't kosher. Glad to be wrong, and thanks for the informative reply. Primergrey (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.