User:Kees08/Various ideas

Commons template
Consider moving the deprecated GRIN id to its own field in the NASA-image template; images are easier to find using the still valid center ID numbers.

Alphabetize references

 * How do citation styles differ in alphabetization?
 * What are tiebreaker rules? Do they change with citation style?
 * Same book, different edition
 * Numbers or letters first
 * Apostrophes or other symbols
 * Is there any case where they shouldn't be?
 * What guideline covers this?
 * Can sections that contain only templates, a mix of templates and handwritten, and only handwritten be alphabetized automatically?
 * Different languages?


 * Different cases
 * Subsections within references example

Archive-date validation
Verify archive-date in URL matches date in URL


 * Is this applicable for all archive websites?
 * What are all the archive websites?
 * Are there any possible cases where the archive date in the citation shouldn't match the archive date in the URL?
 * How to make sure date formatting matches article style?
 * Any applicable guidelines?

Project tagging
Check what pages use infobox spaceflight that do not have a Wikiproject Spaceflight banner.

Executed with Quarry query and other similar queries, results at User:Kees08/Spaceflight Without Spaceflight.

Potentially look at what is in Category:Spaceflight and does not have a WP Spaceflight banner

Prose
Some way to automatically or semi-automatically fix either punctuation error in this edit.

Some way to automatically or semi-automatically fix spaces between references in this edit

Accessibility
Some way to find tables with poor contrast as in this example.

Infobox spaceflight
A way to detect if items with COSPAR starting with 1998-067 also have the deployed from and deployment date parameters. The parameter is not required for all starting with 1998-067, but if a list can be generated so that a human could quickly determine when necessary, it would make the task go fast.

A way to detect if NSSDCA page is valid (invalid example, valid example). If both invalid and incorrect, can it be delinked? I thought there was a parameter but struggling to find it.

When a mission has multiple COSPAR IDs, should we have multiple inputs, e.g. COSPAR_ID1.

Potential parameters to rename

 * apsis to apsis_suffix
 * Might help make clear what the intent of the parameter is by the parameter name.

Potential parameters to add

 * image_upright (example: Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox military person) ✅
 * Note to self: image_size is deprecated on Infobox person in favor of upright; see why and if that should be case here
 * mission_dur_planned
 * I see mission_duration used for the planned/designed mission duration (example). Since that number is static and useful, recommend its own field
 * orbit_epoch_ref

Potential parameters to deprecate

 * trans_HPBW
 * Used once currently, and its an error. So technically used 0 times
 * telescope_focal_ratio
 * Barely used. The focal ratio is the focal length (telescope_focal_length, often used) divided by the aperture (telescope_diameter, often used) (source)
 * trans_capacity
 * 13 uses, most of which seem to really be trans_bandwidth or trans_frequency. What was the difference between trans_capacity and trans_bandwidth supposed to be?
 * image_size, crew_photo_size, insignia_size

Potential descriptions to change

 * names_list
 * Currently implies only official names but not alternative names, such as in Sputnik 1 which has the Cyrillic and could have additional like PS-1, Satellite-1, Простейший Спутник-1 (from the lead)
 * Potentially could create names_previous which would cover the current intent (as I read it) of names_list, and names_alt which would cover other things the satellite was called.
 * image_size
 * We have no instances of images using em for size; recommend removing from description
 * SATCAT
 * This template says no leading zeros, Wikidata for SATCAT says to include leading zeros. Should we align the suggestions to be the same, and if so, should we have leading zeros or exclude them? I recommend we align the two, have no preference to leading zeros or no leading zeros
 * Investigate why we use start-date (~4,800 total uses on wiki) vs start date (~330,000 pages on wiki). Why do we not use the timezone parameter? It looks like spaceflight articles contribute to some of Category:Start-date_transclusions_with_invalid_parameters.
 * names_list
 * Modify parameter to prefer using ubl or similar template for accessibility, like in this edit (see infobox person for potential verbage to copy).
 * COSPAR_ID
 * Should we have a preference towards the COSPAR ID field having no reference (example, having a reference, (example, or say that either is fine? Adding a reference makes it so the autolinking COSPAR template is not used.
 * Somewhat related but not sure how to propose, should the COSPAR template give the option of adding a reference or external link, only create an external link, or only create a reference? Note to self: look up external link guidelines
 * Similarly, should we use the COSPAR template for multiple values (example, not use the COSPAR template for multiple values (example), or have no preference?
 * Multiple COSPAR formatting consistency
 * 2006-011A through 2006-011F
 * 2007-004 (A, B, C, D, E)
 * my preferred method: CSM: 1969-018A

LM ascent stage: 1969-018C

LM descent stage: 1969-018D
 * another example: /
 * If we make examples of what not to do, this seems like something we shouldn't do (harder to fix if NSSDC moves its link someday, whereas template involves changing one parameter)
 * Do we care the order? Satellite second, Satellite first
 * apsis
 * Make more clear what the default is
 * Define list of acceptable parameters, list of currently used values can be found at this report (probably take list from Apsis top right box)
 * launch_site
 * Current use cases are typically Kennedy Space Center LC-39A or Baikonur 1/5
 * To avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE I would prefer Kennedy Space Center LC-39A and Baikonur 1/5
 * Can I suggest that in the TemplateData Example field, and is it a problem to change existing instances?

Potential parameters to merge

 * orbits_completed and orbit_rev_number
 * Appear to be the same thing. Are they supposed to be different?
 * landing_date (502 instances) and recovery_date (5 instances) are very similar. I could think of a case like Voskhod 2 but more extreme where the landing date/time might be different from the recovery date/time. Are there instances where both should be used, or instances where recovery_date should be used over landing_date?

Parameters need to think of what to do with

 * decay_field
 * Used twice to say Destroyed

Layout of infobox information

 * crew_photo
 * Place just below EVA_duration so the insignia and crew photo are not stacked
 * Should Epoch have its own header so the fields that the reference refers to are apparent? Note to self: Maybe mock this up somewhere
 * insignia
 * Add header above insignia to separate and distinguish it from whichever parameters happen to display above it