Talk:STS-134

Last LON Designation
In the introduction it is mentioned that STS-135 would be the designation for the LON mission, but the STS-3xx article contradicts this. Reading through this article, there is mention of STS-335 being "converted" to 135, so I'm somewhat confused as to the correct designation of the LON mission at the time of STS-134. --Resplendent (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article originally specified STS-335, which I believe was correct. Relatively recently, another editor changed it to STS-135. I am unsure why this change was made. Some sources from May 2011 still refer to the LON as STS-335 e.g. here I think it should be changed back to STS-335. Unless there is a valid reason why it was changed, which we may be unaware of. Green Lane (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * After about the 5th return to flight mission, the LON flights were given the designation of the next flight and not STS-3xx. The only recent flight to have a different mission with a special LON was STS-125 (STS-400 was LON). It had been discussed on I believe the STS-119 talk page but I could be wrong. I believe that most of the space related sources (i.e. NASASpaceflight.com and Spaceflightnow.com) all refer to the LON as STS-135.-- Navy Blue84  10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

File:STS-134 launch 2.ogv to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:STS-134 launch 2.ogv will be appearing as picture of the day on May 16, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-05-16. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on STS-134. 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/20101010153429/https://songcontest.nasa.gov/ to https://songcontest.nasa.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on STS-134. 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/20110509195417/http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/endeavour-space-shuttle-launch-faces-more-delay to http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/endeavour-space-shuttle-launch-faces-more-delay
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707073317/http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/nasa-bill-passed-by-congress-would-allow-for-one-additional-shuttle-flight-in-2011 to http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/nasa-bill-passed-by-congress-would-allow-for-one-additional-shuttle-flight-in-2011
 * Added tag to http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33568
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100321181152/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog to http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385&plckPostId=Blog%3a04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3a9826a456-79a2-46ff-9d67-e0b27290afc0&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504094843/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2011/04/space-shuttle-sts-134-engineering-problem-scrubs-launch.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2011/04/space-shuttle-sts-134-engineering-problem-scrubs-launch.html

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) 10:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on STS-134. 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/20110317151704/http://www.itwire.com/science-news/space/45772-employee-dies-at-nasa-sts-134-launch-site to http://www.itwire.com/science-news/space/45772-employee-dies-at-nasa-sts-134-launch-site
 * Added tag to http://spaceflight1.nasa.gov/gallery/audio/shuttle/sts-134/html/ndxpage1.html

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) 17:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead image
You mentioned in that "this is the only image of the Space Shuttle and ISS viewed [independently] from another vehicle", but there's an entire category of photographs on Commons of Endeavour docked to the station. If your point instead was to illustrate that this was the only flight in which a Shuttle was photographed docked to the ISS, sure, but the associated caption doesn't make that clear at all. What also isn't made clear here is the point of the mission. The Manual of Style documents that "it is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image [...] Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic..." On this I'd argue two points; 1) this image does not illustrate any aspects of the mission itself, rather a common thing that has happened 37 times over the course of the Space Shuttle program, the Shuttle docking to the station, and 2) the taking of this photograph is not a notable enough event to warrant it being used – over any photographs of the mission itself being carried out – to illustrate the mission as a whole. In addition, we have four different photogrpahs consisting a gallery in the "23 May (Flight Day 8)" section of this article depicting Endeavour docked to the station. Isn't that enough? Why do we need a cropped photograph of one of these images to now serve as our lead when this gallery already does the job illustrating the event four times over? –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * After reading your paragraph, I do understand your point of view and take everthing into consideration. In my verdict, I believe that yes despite other images of the same shot appearing in lower sections of the article - the one in the infobox should still stay because in the entire history of the shuttle program's role in assembling the ISS, this mission (STS-134) is the first and only time where the shuttle orbiter and completed station can be seen together independently from another vehicle (in this case the Soyuz). Both the payload of STS-134 (the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer) is visible, as well as the structually completed ISS and shuttle orbiter on its last mission. When that shot (and others) were taken by Paolo Nespoli, they were by far one of the most iconic, colorfully aesthetic (in terms of exposure, contrast and natural color of the Earth against the background) and rare views of the station, which sill remain so today. Other images showing the instllation of the AMS do not have the same colorful and iconic astuteness as the current photo. Also, another user edited the caption by putting in extra words to describe the photo. If you think that might be not enough, let me know so I can rephrase it. Lastly, that image has been used for a few years now. Thanks User:Raphael.concorde) 13:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "...the entire history of the shuttle program's role in assembling the ISS", however this article is not about that, this article is specifically about the STS-134 mission, and should illustrate it specifically. In addition, I do not understand how from a thumbnail scale anybody can make out the shape of anything other than the basic shape of the station, the Shuttle, the two Soyuzes, and the ATV, let alone be able to see the AMS. I am also unaware of any policy or guideline that states if something is on an article for years that it should never be removed. That seems so ridiculous that I wouldn't be surprised if there's actually a policy or guideline that advises against this argument. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 17:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia in general doesn't have any concrete rules regarding situations like this, however the general reading and editing community indeed do have an unwritten rule: let me give you two real examples I've experienced. About two years ago, the NASA infobox was the Government Agency type ever since the article was created over a decade prior. One editor wanted to and attempted to change it to the general space agency type of infobox, which was present for about two weeks. However a moderator and admin reverted back the revision after a brief edit war regarding US space agencies' articles to be all government infoboxes (in this case which show the flag of NASA, annual budget, employees, formation, adminiatrator, juristiction, etc). Another example is the lead image of the primary ISS article - which shows STS-132 image of the station. That image has been used for nearly 10 years now ever since May 2010, and many editors and moderators agree with the fact that the image capture has the ideal contrast, color and overview of the station (without the shuttle attached). There have been editors who replaced the image with one from STS-134 (ISS view from the rear), but the contrast and appearance was percieved to be poorer in quality; and was quickly reverted to the STS-132 version. Yet another example I can give you is John Glenn's wikipedia lead image of him as a US senator, rather than him as an astronaut (even though those are lower down in the infobox, and not at the top.)


 * Now in this case, it is ideal for the STS-134 lead image to be the rare opportunity photoshoot of Endeavour attached to the space station. According to NASA photo processing employees I've worked with during my internship at Kennedy, that photoshoot is seen as an icon during that shuttle mission. Like I've stated before, the AMS can be seen on the truss near the shuttle's nose in that perspective. To finish and resolve this discussion, I strongly suggest that you agree to leave the current STS-134 ISS image the way it is. I have given plenty of points and evidence to prove this. In the meantime, I do appreaciate your efforts in the other shuttle mission articles' lead images you've edited, and the images you've chosen in those other articles meet the community's expectations, incluing good quality photographs of payloads or other highlights, such as the Cupola's EVA image in STS-130. So please lets come to terms and consider this argument closed. User:Raphael.concorde) 18:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely disappointed that decorative iconography is being prioritised ahead of an adequate illustration of the mission, but I guess I'll have to accept it. STS-134 was not launched just so that a Soyuz crew can take a pretty photograph, nor would anybody except those exceptionally familiar with what the AMS even looks like would be able to make it out in this photograph without clicking through to see the full image, nor is the photograph that iconic, since I could only find two reliable sources that have written articles about the photography [1 ][2 ] – compared to the rolling waterfall of sources about Earthrise and The Blue Marble, for example – but okay. –  PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 06:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. User:Raphael.concorde) 10:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)