Talk:UK Space Agency/Archives/2013

Logo
See http://twitpic.com/1aey3j and http://tweetphoto.com/15493554 for the logo. Brumski (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Transfer of responsibilities
User:Mike Peel added the section "Transfer of responsibilities" with the edit summary, "transfer of responsibilities" (needs a better title). How about "Transfer of authority"? TJRC (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would work better than the current one. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, done. TJRC (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Transparent logo background
Why has the logo been replaced with an altered image that uses a transparent background ? The union jack colours are red, white, and blue. Not red, whatever colour the webpage or web browser is using as a background, and blue.

If this image ever appeared on the front page of wikipedia it would appear red, green and blue in the FA section or red, blue and blue if it was in the in the news section.

More to the point it appears red, black and blue on my web browser, since I browse the web with the browser set-up to use its own bacground colours. Why do people use transparent backgrounds ?

If you want the logo to be slightly off-white then make the image slightly off-white. What is the point of a transparent background ?

The only point of a transparency is so that it merges into the background no matter what the background colour is, but either:

a) you know what the intended background is going to be, in which case why not just make the image that colour ?

or

b) you don't know what the intended background is going to be, in which case you've got no business creating a transparent background in the first place

The union jack is red, white and blue. 81.132.172.20 (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 81.132.172.20 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This message as been copied to Village pump (policy) as it concerns images throughout wikipedia. 81.132.172.20 (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A white flag background and the rest transparent as the current 13:16, 24 March 2010 version is seems like a good idea. If it turns out later that all white areas are meant to be transparent (unlikely) or that all the non flag areas are meant to be white; e.g. a white background to the text and borders (possible but not likely), then it can be changed. Brumski (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The previous closing of the MoD's UFO office
Perhaps the closing was timed to dovetail with this item? I'm sure the exopolitical community will assert this connection. Is it a relevant context for mentioning? __meco (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

1 april joke?
Must be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.187.185 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I wondered that too at first, but several news stories from before April Fool's Day can be found by searching Google News. Tom walker (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope; it's been planned for a while. Definitely not an April Fool's joke. The Science and Technology Facilities Council also started on 1 April. Mike Peel (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were a joke someone would have inserted a link to the previous British space programmes, such as Dr. Who and Red Dwarf. Seriously, I also thought it was an April Fools joke but found other news stories confirming it. 98.67.253.92 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it just British National Space Centre renamed?
exaggeration? clarify. sources. --Athinker (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, everything has basically been transferred to the new agency, HordeFTL (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tense change
I'm a bit uneasy about the tense change from future to past, as what they said they were going to do a week ago doesn't necessarily equate to what has been done so far. Things could take place in the future, or they could not happen at all. My major worry is in saying $60 million has been spent setting it up - has it? It was said that it _would_ cost $60 million to be set up, but has that money actually been spent? Mike Peel (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think the article British space programme should be merged into this one. The analogy is that United States space program redirects to NASA. Mlm42 (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The US space program and NASA overlap nearly entirely, both in a historical and an operational context, which is why the US space program article was created specifically as a redirect to NASA. That isn't the case for the British space program and The UK Space Agency though. The British space program has existed for decades and has done lots of things that are relevant to an article on the British space program but aren't relevant to an article on The UK Space Agency (which was only created this year). Brumski (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, because as Brumski mentioned, the US space program is NASA. However the UKSA is a brand new agency that has virtually no connection with the British space program previous to its creation. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the current British Space program is completely run by the UK Space agency, but maybe I'm misunderstanding.. it's true, the history of the British space program obviously has nothing to do with UKSA, and I suppose this may warrant a separate article; but wouldn't a more appropriate title be something like "History of the British space program"? Mlm42 (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a better analogy would be Japanese space program, which is redirected to Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, which was formed in 2003 by merging three organizations. How is this different from the UK Space Agency situation? The main difference I see is that the UK merge was done more recently; shall we wait several years to merge British space programme into this article, or shall we do it now? Mlm42 (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps the question should be, should that other merge have even occured? Having an article about an organisation cover events before anybody even suggested the organisation exist, that are related to the organisation only by "A of B does C and this other article is about B's doing C, so the article on A should cover C" seems quite dubious to me. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow what you're saying.. what are A, B, and C here? I think the point I'm trying to make is that the scope of the UK space agency and the British space programme articles have too much overlap, so one way or another it seems we should only have one article. Although the UK Space Agency page is currently small, it should be expanded to include all of the agency's (current and future) activities.. in other words, it should include all of the (current) British space programme. Mlm42 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, what I'm trying to say is that because Nation X used to have a generic space program, but now has Organisation Y overseeing its space activities, putting all the historic information about Nation X's space program in the Organisation Y article, when Organisation Y had nothing to do with the space program prior to its founding, isn't quite cricket, at least IMHO. - 04:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)