Template talk:Rest of the World Reconnaissance Satellites

Start
Created Page TDRSS (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page to a particular title at this time, per the discussion below. This can be revisited in the future if someone can come up with a better way to partition things. The Rest of the world article seems to attest to the neutrality of the current title, although intuitively the current title makes me a bit uncomfortable as well. Dekimasu よ! 11:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Rest of the World Reconnaissance Satellites → a different title &mdash; The current title is too vague, it should be more descriptive, but I can't think of a really suitable title —  G W … 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur, that's why its titled the way it is. The US Intel community usually has distinctive categories for things: US, USSR (now Russian), and everything else (R-O-W). If the Chinese keep bolstering their satellites, they'll have a template box too. TDRSS (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Comment what about just Reconnaissance satellites, and transclude the other templates onto it? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, merging them into a collapsible navbox like could work. -- G  W … 10:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say if the box was renamed "RECONNAISSANCE SATELLITES" it would have to include the two others (US and Soviet/Russian). The template box will then be huge and perhaps unaestetic to reach links quickly. I designed the trio to be short, concise and useful. If it needs a name change, then so be it. TDRSS (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. I've started to draft an alternative at . By using collapsible groups we can eliminate the problem of size, and it can be programmed to automatically open the relevant section on each article that it is transcluded to. I've also renamed it "Military satellites" because I think that is what you were trying to achieve (quite a few of the satellites you listed, GPS for example, have no relevance to reconnaissance at all), and removed the commercial section accordingly. Perhaps a separate template could be created for civilian and commercial imagery, which is not normally associated with reconnaissance. -- G W … 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Soviet and Russian should be clearly delineated, which is not currently the case with the existing Russian template. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

What's this template actually about? If "rest of the world" refers to non-United States, then I would suggest something like Reconnaissance Satellites launched outside of the United States; Reconnaissance Satellites of non-United States manufacture; Non-United States Reconnaissance Satellites; Non-US Reconnaissance Satellites; Non-American Reconnaissance Satellites. YeshuaDavid (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the above assessment, but seriously, the title is a bit long and wordy. I chose the title wording specifically to avoid the above debates. Failed miserably, I did. TDRSS (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the other templates that this attempts to supplement? 70.29.208.129 (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of and . Not sure if there are any others. -- G  W … 03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I created all three templates, the purpose was to easily find similar systems (i.e. the KH-series for US satellites), instead of going back to a Category page. Sometimes category pages don't even include the right satellites, thereby causing a gap in information. TDRSS (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.