User talk:Mlm42/Archive 1

List of universities in Ontario
I like the neat table you made. Great job! :-) -- Spinboy 19:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics diploma count
2006 Winter Olympics diploma count has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is at Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics diploma count. NickelShoe 23:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

olympic diploma discussion
I just wanted to apologize for accusing you of something when you didn't deserve it; perhaps i didn't fully understand your impressively unrelated analogies to explain the situation.. phases of jupiter? hungarians who's name begins with J? halitosis? that's what i call left field! hehe :) Mlm42 16:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I guess that's the point I'm trying to make - that the data being shown is at such a granular "left field" level as to be of very little practical use. Why not go all the way and show a total of everyone from Slovenia that finished 43rd in different events?  At some point it will simply become a random jumble of numbers that has no bearing on anything and thereby reduces the credibility of Wikipedia.  Hence my vote...  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Expedition 12
Hello, I am not certain if you noticed, but there is a discussion already going on about the picture in Expedition 12. Please contribute there before making changes. Thank you. Chuck 09:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Surface features on Mars
Hey. So I've been buzzing about some of the Mars surface feature articles and noticed you doing the same. I've created four over the last two days and of course there's dozens more on the List of Valles on Mars and List of Chasmata on Mars pages. First, though I thought I'd start with the larger regions. I added Category:Terrae on Mars and a List of Terrae on Mars, derived from Google Mars. You can follow some red-links there if you like. For the sake of uniformity, I'd suggest:


 * Lat and long from Google or the THEMIS descriptions to which Google links.
 * The area (presented as ex. 2500 km squared).
 * Naming data, including year and source.
 * Most can probably take pics, given the plethora of NASA stuff.

I have one vexing problem tho. I was under the impression that currently Martian longitude runs from 0-360°, East only. Google uses 0-180°, both East and West. Some of the research papers I've briefly glanced at also use West and it used to be 0-360° West only. I'm following Google for now, rather than subtracting the western coordinates from 360 and listing it all as East. However, we need to be uniform.

Finally, I missed the debate on moving from Topography to Surface features (I actually started the former). I'm not sure if this best, as it replaces a subject with objects; inter-wiki links show geography or topography as titles, for example. While specific things like rocks and craters may work better under surface features, broad areas like Tharsis or Arabia Terra are basically topographical regions, not individual features. Of course, this may be semantic quibbling. Cheers and let me know any ideas. Marskell 11:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll bring up my points on the Wikiproject, thanks. Re what is and is not notable: we have 33 craters at present, and if those are notable than the valles and canyons are as well. Of course this raises a scaleability concern, as Google Mars has 800. The terrae definitely belong. They're basically continent sized areas; if anything they'd be the merge target for smaller objects. One possibility is making intermediate subjects, Valles of the Arabia Terra, for instance. I've brought up this general question on the wiki project. As for the name of the cat, I suppose we'll have to disagree. Cheers and thx for getting back to me, Marskell 16:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging from this Category:Craters on the Moon, where well into the thousands of craters are listed, Wiki tendency to this point is to simply give an article for everything that's named... --Marskell 06:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Laika
Laika has had a lot of work: can you have a fresh look here. Thanks, Sandy 00:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Recategorising the wikipedia considered harmful
Please stop incorrectly categorising the spaceflight articles in the wikipedia immediately. WolfKeeper 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ottawa Coat of Arms.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ottawa Coat of Arms.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Space Portals & Other Stuff
Sounds good to me. Makes sense, too. I was always a little put off by the breakdown of information. It never quite sat right and I couldn't figure out why. This approach makes good headway i reckon. I don't have tons of time to contribute lately, but I will pop in and take a look from time to time and help out when I can. Cheers, --Exodio 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No worries on the location, either. I started working on this stuff and tried to put a lot of structure into what what basicaly structureless. I'm glad someone else is cleaning up and trying to make it better. --Exodio 16:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 15:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Martian geography project proposed rename
Hi. It has been suggested that the project "Martian geography" be rename to "Mars" in order to increase its scope and increase its usefulness. If you have an opinion concering this, could you leave it on the talk page, or on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Reorganisation? Thanks. Lunokhod 22:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

template
Hi, could the template Template:WikiProject Martian Geography/Members be deleted? I don't see anything using it? sbandrews 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirect seems fine. Mlm42 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

oops
Sorry, like the new banner :) sbandrews (t) 19:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of abritrarily-chosen rules of language = dumb
That's what me thinks, anyway. Artie p 09:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment on assessment templates
As the assessment templates are currently written, most people will ask questions at WikiProject Space (the first project that they will see listed) before they go to the other WikiProjects. Is that what is desired here? I do not know if everyone would agree. I would rather see the other projects listed first and WikiProject listed last in the template (as another icon). Dr. Submillimeter 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Top-importance n
I hacked a bit on Template:Top-importance n and its kin to change the wording on WPSpace banners related to Space exploration importance. I don't yet fully understand the features available in whatever macro-expansion language it is that these templates use. Please let me know if I've done something stupid! Sdsds 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms of Universite de Sherbrooke.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Space missions WikiProject
Hi, I noticed that you are a member of the Space missions WikiProject. A couple of weeks ago, I proposed that the Space missions and Space travellers projects, which both appear to be inactive be merged into the Human Spaceflight project. Whilst this is being done, the capitalisation of the Human spaceflight project's title would also be corrected (ie. Human Spaceflight → Human spaceflight). The projects are all doing the same/very similar things, and in my opinion, a single, larger, project would be more effective than three smaller, and somewhat inactive projects.. In light of very little response to messages on the project talk pages, I am now sending this message to all members of all three projects, inviting them to discuss the proposal on the Human Spaceflight project's talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A new task force - ESA
Hello,

I've noticed that you are active in the area of space exploration. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

==== Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at. Thank you. Colds7ream (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Zanzibari heads of government
Hi. I just wanted to say that I agree with your suggested move. Thanks. --Acntx (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tabs
Can you help me out? Please click here and see the comments from • ɔ ∫ →. Please answer it at my talk page. --Extra999 (Contact me +  contribs) 11:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I have no problems, but nice astronomy articles are difficult to find, the same goes with pictures and already may of them have gone selected. Therefore, it would very difficult to maintain but I have no problem if we cooperate and maintain that. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 01:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Expedition 1
The article Expedition 1 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Expedition 1 for things which need to be addressed. -- G W … 10:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Another one -- G W … 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, just noting that I've finished my review of it. Once those issues are fixed, the article can be passed. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
...and again. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Soviet mission names
I knew this issue would come up eventually, and I've seen you've taken the initiative and created what I assume will be the first of many articles on the Soviet space expeditions. When I added a lot of content to the 70s Soyuz missions, my main sources from circa 1990 almost never referred to expedition numbers, but to the crews as Soyuz xx crews even though after 1977 they often landed in a different craft.

But it seems from 1995 and the involvement of Nasa, expedition numbers started to be used (at least by Nasa) more frequently. So... there is a lot of work to do here, as none of the other Salyut 6 and Salyut 7 missions have been done... The Mir ones are largely there, as are the ISS...

Since you've started this, I will, when I eventually get to updating the missions for the 1980s (and if no one else beats me to the punch), try to create or expand the pages with the Soyuz craft as simply launch vehicles, the expeditions as the main place where mission activities are to be found. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mlm - I insist you re-instate the Soyuz pages in question - you have failed to gain the required consensus here to do this. Canada Jack (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that went well; you've managed to scare off GW, one of our best contributors - it was a bit out of line to start making the changes without waiting for an agreement. Colds7ream (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll likely need to seek him out on NSF; I doubt if he'll continue to watch the page. Colds7ream (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encouragement. He pointed to three editors by the way, not just me. Mlm42 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the thread, I personally agree entirely with your position, but given how hot tensions were running, I'd probably have made changes in userspace rather than article space, collected consensus then moved over. I didn't force my views on anyone. Neither did anyone else, for that matter... Colds7ream (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although my comment above, on reflection, was probably uncalled for. My apologies. Colds7ream (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problems.. I was upset to hear he was leaving too. Mlm42 (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah - 32,000 edits; he'll be missed. :-( Colds7ream (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it might be time to make a request for comments, as you suggested. Mlm42 (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Go for it then - the instructions are at WP:RfC. Colds7ream (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
and also see User_talk:Colds7ream -MBK004 02:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 08:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Human spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Human spaceflight at 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Timeline of Spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight at 07:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Space reorganization
Hello WikiProject Space member! A discussion has been started regarding the future of WikiProject Space here; any comments you might have would be welcome! There are mainly two competing ideas:


 * 1) Centralize all the Space-related WikiProjects, such as Astronomy and Spaceflight, and merge them into WikiProject Space, or
 * 2) Separate the Astronomy and Spaceflight "sides" of WikiProject, and remove WikiProject Space.

If you can think of other options, that's great too. Your contribution to the discussion would be much appreciated. Thanks! :)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Space at 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Errors In Message Delivery
Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (WikiProject Space reorganization). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:


 * Cremepuff222 - User is blocked.
 * Rdwoodneo - User does not exist.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 00:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

 * And another -- G W … 22:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjects Moon and Mars activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Solar System at 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject Spaceflight activity
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 18:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Years for start dates (Lagos Airport)
Please see WP:AIRPORTS page content, the year is not needed if the start date is less than 13 months from now. Please discuss your changes there and gain new consensus before changing. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to the discussion where this convention was established, please? Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Airports/page_content (Line 11). Bring this up to discussion at the project talk page and gain new consensus. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no discussion there, you pointed to the guideline page. Was there a discussion on this point? Or any evidence of consensus? Mlm42 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There was one here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_10 since another editor on Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport wants to include the year in dates as well. But that disnussion died down already and no changes were made. I would start a new discussion on this matter and get consensus. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, here is another one that was brought up Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports/Archive_9. Snoozlepet (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no consensus there regarding a 13 months standard.. noone even seemed to support this guideline. In fact you yourself said "I would say to go ahead and put the year regardless of what month it starts." To which I agree! Why then did you revert my edit?! *confusion*.. Mlm42 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going by the project guidelines and every other airport does not include year for new services. Yes, i agree the year needs to be added for clarification but I cannot change that on what I said. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But you're not forced to follow a project's guidelines, especially if the guidelines don't come from consensus! Mlm42 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Started a new discussion on this matter at WP:AIRPORTS. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight reboot
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation of WP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC).

Changed assessments
Could the change in the number of assessed articles have anything to do with the changes made by this editor to the documentation of the Spaceflight banner? I'm not au fait with all the workings of banners so I'm not sure exactly why these changes would be made. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The changes are listed here, and are due to Koavf's edits (like this one), replacing the HSF banner with the new Spaceflight banner.. it looks like it's causing conflicts when the WP:Space banner is also trying to assess the article. Mlm42 (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, just checking because I also wasn't sure if the changes to the template were what we wanted. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think those changes are okay; I don't think they really change the functionality at the moment, but they might give more flexibility later. Mlm42 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Another -- G W … 00:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AVIATION
Thanks for your interest in helping the aviation project and in particularly guidelines. I do support any efforts to improve the work of the project but you just have to bear with us if we come across a bit gruff and dinosaur like but we do respond to a reasoned discussion. If you need any help then please ask (on any of the multitude of talk pages!). MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I probably come across a bit "gruff" sometimes too! :) Mlm42 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 0

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 16:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

The Downlink: Issue 1

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Deadlink
Just so you know, deadlink should go inside the ref tags, not after. In any event, thanks for tagging the presidential line of succession article; I've replaced the link. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Thanks for letting me know. Mlm42 (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

VTVL, VTHL, etc. terms for Spacecraft and Rockets?
Hi again Mlm42. You previously commented in a discussion on this topic on WikiProject Spacecraft. A (new?) anon user has begun to improve the VTVL article. I hope you will take a look, assist if interested, and perhaps weigh in on the Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Reply
Hello. I tried adding a fourth column but it won't let me do it,how do you actually do it?

--MKY661 (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see; I've replied here. Mlm42 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Interview request
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Opinion
Hello, could you please give your feedback on this issue. Thanks, &mdash; Why so serious?  Talk to me 04:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now left a comment on the talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
You previously commented on the idea of new spacecraft templates. The discussion has reached a point where more review of the current (sandbox) draft Spacecraft missions and Spacecraft class templates would be helpful. Info and links are on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight page in the Infobox spaceflight section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Spaceworthiness (see also Airworthiness, Seaworthiness, Crashworthiness ...)
Because of the very specialized and complex technical concepts defined by terms like spaceworthiness, airworthiness, seaworthiness and crashworthiness, I have the opinion that each of them deserve to have their own entry in Wikipedia, as is now. So, my proposal is against the mere merge of the "spaceworthiness" entry with the "spacecraft" one, but just to include some reference to "spaceworthiness" in the entry for "spacecraft". Sethemanuel (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 2

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Talkback
Hi. ChiZero and I have been discussing something and he suggested I ask you for an opinion. Rather than copy the discussion somewhere else, it is probably best just to point you to that discussion on ChiZero's Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool poster w/Mark Kelly!
Nice add to Kelly's page. Thx.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kelly
Kelly is the commander right now of STS-134, which is a planned mission.

He is not the scheduled commander.

Will look at this more later.

Cheers,

Jim


 * See if the way I just revised it works for you both. I agree, Jim, that he is commander which is why I had it worded that way, but perhaps it is less prone to confusion now. Tvoz / talk 05:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox taxi spacecraft
Template:Infobox taxi spacecraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mark Kelly assessed
I've attempted to address all of the comments after your B-class assessment. I am hoping you can review, and maybe have a colleague you've worked with review as well. I'd like to nominate for GA, but want more input first. Thanks for your help.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing numbers
May I suggest that this discussion take place at the bottom of the talk page? Not everybody sees new discussions further up. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Mlm42 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason I put it there was so it's in the same section as the requests for comment. Mlm42 (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Downlink: Issue 3

 * You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

The discussion about JOGG
Just for your reference, because I assume you only read the links I have which were at very awkward moments near the end discussion, showing cases where Jayjg edited talk page posts, here is the link to the more full (actually still re-edited) discussion I initiated with Jayjg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_32#Deletion_for_the_wrong_reason:_just_a_remark. If you start at the top and work down you'll see that I put a lot of effort into trying to create a rational discussion, and this was not reciprocated. When I made accusations later of bad faith it was based on analyses of events in that discussion which could be verified, so not WP:NPA. I honestly think your personal comments about me on WP:V were a little quick to have really read this and balanced the evidence enough to make the remark you did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the discussion I had linked to, and that's the one I was talking about; I had read most of it. I have no desire to continue this conversation. Mlm42 (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Korolyov
Thanks for the notice, although it seems I have beaten you to commenting on both pages :) If you didn't get a chance to look at WP:RUS (our guideline dealing with romanization of Russian), you might want to review it now. You are dead wrong about moving the article about the city, and right on the money with the person (although for a whole different set of reasons) :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2011; 22:05 (UTC)
 * I've replied to this on your talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You must have skimmed it, not read it :) Here, from WP:RUS:
 * When possible, use a conventional English name (as defined below) instead of the default romanization.
 * A conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over default romanization at all times. [emphasis mine&mdash;Ё]
 * That's it. Last I checked, Korolyov wasn't important enough to be included into any major dictionaries. What the official website's URL is doesn't matter in the slightest, and even if the city had a website in English with a different spelling, that still wouldn't have mattered, because they are free to choose from half a dozen different romanization systems (all of which are good, but for different purposes), many of which produce incompatible results. We standardize on one of those systems, and it's BGN/PCGN, which is the industry standard when it comes to romanization of place names in Russia. We shouldn't be inventing new rules when there already is a perfectly good standard, which specifically targets Anglophones.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2011; 22:20 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter much to me, one way or the other, but there's a pretty obvious "common sense" argument I've made at Talk:Korolyov (city). Guidelines sometimes have exceptions. Mlm42 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Guidelines should allow for exceptions, when there is an obvious benefit to be gained. In this case, however, I fail to see what that benefit might be. The "common sense" scenario you are talking about has an obvious downside; one that WP:RUS accounts for.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 4, 2011; 14:15 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what's the downside, exactly? Mlm42 (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, missed your question. The downside is that the exception we'd be making does not align with any real-world practices of dealing with similar situations. Common sense approach makes sense when a situation is unique and no industry standards exist; yet in this case there are plenty of documented approaches of dealing with just this kind of situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 16:53 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of another situation of this kind, where the city is named after a person, and that person's name does not use the default transliteration? It would be useful to see such an example. Mlm42 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did in previous discussions, but here it is again&mdash;Dmitri Mendeleev vs. Mendeleyevsk. Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky vs. Chaykovsky, Perm Krai is also worth a mention.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 17:18 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the Mendeleyevsk example, but that seems to be a non-example to me, since the person and town have different names in Russian. The Chaykovsky example is very relevant; thanks for pointing that out.. but there doesn't appear to have been a discussion about that title either. Mlm42 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As for Mendeleyev(sk), the spelling difference in Russian has nothing to do with the "ee"/"eye" distinction in English, so the example is relevant (were the town to be named "Менделеев", the article would have still been under "Mendeleyev"). As for Chaykovsky, the name is compliant with WP:RUS, which makes a discussion pointless (unless you can demonstrate that the conventionality clause is being violated). The relevant discussion, covering all possible cases, took place when WP:RUS was being adopted. That's actually one of the main reasons why we even have our guidelines (and no, I'm not just talking about WP:RUS, I mean all of our guidelines) in place&mdash;to make sure that we don't waste time by holding trivial discussions over every single article every single time. When a guideline is based on applicable real-life practices, discussing every article every time serves no purpose. Wikipedia is not a place where editors should devise better ways to standardize things or to improve existing ways by exercising "common sense" (the definition of which varies wildly from one person to another)&mdash;we are supposed to observe what reputable organizations do in the field, agree on what the best practice to follow is, document it, and follow it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 18:11 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not the only one who thinks this. User:Pmanderson pointed out (here) that "Having a city not spelled like its eponym requires a positive reason". Also WP:RUS isn't particularly helpful in this case (because it's not included in dictionaries), but it does say: "When possible, use a conventional English name (as defined below) instead of the default romanization." If a city is named after a person, then I'm saying the conventional English name of the city is the conventional English name of the person - unless there's reason to believe otherwise. This makes sense to me, and I suspect it would make sense to a lot of other Wikipedia editors as well. Mlm42 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * People are entitled to have their own opinions, which come in different sizes and qualities. Did you know that before WP:RUS was adopted, some editors had opinions that the transliteration systems developed personally by them is what Wikipedia absolutely needs? As ridiculous as this proposal seems, it was suggested probably on half a dozen different occasions (and I'm not even counting home-brewed "improvements" of existing romanization systems). We schedule (or at least do our best to try to schedule) our activities not around the opinions, but around the existing real-world practices, especially when those are so readily available. There is no need to re-invent the wheel/new romanization practices; they have already been invented and in place for years.
 * Also, you are misreading WP:RUS again&mdash;for place names, "as defined below" refers exactly to the dictionary clause below and nothing else. There is no wiggle room by design&mdash;if a place name is not listed in a general-purpose dictionary, then there is no "conventional name" for it, so it needs to be romanized. And since there are many ways to transliterate a place name, WP:RUS gives guidance which one to use as standard default. Note that this same approach would not work for people names, which is why the WP:RUS conventionality clause for people is much more elaborate.
 * The bottom line of all this is that we do not invent the guidelines, we borrow what works. No single romanization system ever takes into consideration who a place was named after (I already mentioned this, yet for some reason got no comment in response). Neither should we. What can be unclear about that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 20:37 (UTC)
 * But WP:IAR exists for a reason, and that's what I'm claiming applies here. Whether or not a strict reading of the WP:RUS guideline allows it, the IAR policy could apply. If there is consensus among editors to allow an exception in the case of an eponym, then it doesn't matter what reliable sources have to say about it. Consensus among editors is more important. Mlm42 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

B-class articles
I was hoping to get Vladimir Komarov's page up to maybe B-class from its current C-rating but Template:WikiProject_Spaceflight/doc seems to have errors on it. I note you have edited it in the past so you may be able to help me. Like... what does this mean: B-Class-6 – Does the article contains the appropriately accessible way? If you can help me, I would be grateful for any assistance. Aakheperure (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out; I've fixed the wording. Mlm42 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject Space
Template:WikiProject Space has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JJ98 (Talk)  18:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Photographs
I have TASS wired photographs that would be good for the Vladimir Komarov article (and other articles) that were published in newspapers internationally, but I am not sure how to go about checking if I can use them or not. I was never able to establish if I could even use the ru-wiki photograph of Varlamov for my en-wiki article. If you have any ideas how to go about this, please tell me. I have photographs, official postcards, and First Day covers and other signed memorabilia for the first 12 cosmonauts, the Apollo-Soyuz test program and the members of Air Force Group 1 who flew. I also have a photograph of the Kosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. Let's start with TASS? Aakheperure (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good question.. and I'm not sure the answer. What I recommend doing is asking your question at Media copyright questions; they seem good and answering these kinds of questions. There are several postcards in Yuri Gagarin's article which are tagged with this copyright license, having been uploaded by someone owns the postcards. I agree that the images you have would be extremely useful for these articles, so I definitely recommend asking at Media copyright questions; they might want you to provide a good amount of information about where the images actually came from. If you upload the images first, then be sure to include a link in your question. Good luck! Mlm42 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great information! Thank you! I have posted on the page you suggested, providing all the information listed on the images (which in this case is extensive luckily). There's probably a lot of photos in my collection I cannot use, eg a very rare 10x8 signed Komarov from I acquired from a former VVS collector, which is a pity but can't be helped. I am hoping the TASS photos can be used as they are of the Voskhod 1 mission and contain all crew members and images transmitted from space so they could be used across 4 articles (crew and mission page). The images also contain Brezhnev and Valentina Tereshkova, so are of historical importance elsewhere. Fingers crossed.Aakheperure (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Feedback
I'd like to work on Yuri Gagarin's page in the lead up to the 50th anniversary of his flight, but am hesitant to take on such a high profile article. Can you advise me where I can get feedback regarding my editing (Vladimir Komarov) so I have an idea about what could be done to improve that page and what things I need to fix about my editing style? Should I edit another page first?

Thank you for your words of support and encouragement so far, it has been very much appreciated.Aakheperure (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you should go for it. I've been trying to improve some of the mission articles, like Vostok 1, Vostok programme, and related articles. I made a few improvements to Yuri Gagarin, but more could be done. Generally, your editing is great; especially your use of inline citations. In the Pavel Belyayev article, I changed the citation style slightly, to reduce duplication; you don't have to write out the whole reference each time you reference it. I find this style is both easier to read, and easier to type.


 * I personally found that when I edit human spaceflight articles, I have to remind myself not to editorialize; the sources, such as Burgess and Hall, can use phrases like "Belyayev was affectionately known as Pasha", but at Wikipedia we should make it more neutral, so the word affectionately isn't really appropriate. I rewrote this to: "Belyayev was known as Pasha to his family.". Another piece of advice is to build the web, by linking to other articles. I added some wikilinks where appropriate in the Pavel Belyayev article.. but sometimes it wasn't clear where it should link.. for example which Leninsky District did he grow up in? And where is "Minkovo"?


 * One way of getting feedback to Vladimir Komarov is to nominate it as a good article, when you think it's ready. I think it's pretty close; you may want to have a look over the Good article criteria, and when you feel confident it satisfies the criteria, follow the nominating instructions.


 * Basically, with the 50 year anniversary less than a month away, improvements to Yuri Gagarin's article would be very welcome! :D Mlm42 (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Great suggestions and thanks for modelling how to do the citations, I knew I was doing it wrong, but I'm still learning. I would really like to work on the mission pages for Vostok 1-6 and Voskhod 1-2 as those are my main field of interest so I would like to work with you on this if you are in interested. Aakheperure (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely interested. I didn't know much about them, which is why I started learning about the precursor missions; as I learned about those, I added to the Vostok programme article, as well as the specific articles like Korabl-Sputnik 5. I think the main Vostok programme and Voskhod programme articles should have priority, with more detailed information going into the individual mission articles. Mlm42 (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know I am probably not the person you would like to see after we got to a wrong start in another place, but I thought I might be helpful here for a change :) I just wanted to clarify something about "Leninsky District" mentioned above. Does the source really say "Leninsky" and not "Ledengsky"? The village of Minkovo, where Belyayev went to school in the 1930s, is located in what is now Babushkinsky District of Vologda Oblast, and Babushkinsky District was called Ledengsky until 1941. As far as I know, there was never a "Leninsky" District in either Vologda Oblast or the entities that preceded it, but the two spellings look kind of similar, especially to a foreign eye, so I wouldn't be surprised if Burgess and Hall made a mistake. "Leninsky" means something named after Lenin, while "Ledengsky" refers to a place on the Ledenga River.
 * Another comment I wanted to make is about "Pasha". "Pasha" is a common diminutive form of Pavel&mdash;I'd say close to 100% of Russians named "Pavel" were addressed as "Pasha" at some point in their lives. Seems too trivial to warrant a mention as it bears no significant meaning. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2011; 17:07 (UTC)
 * I see; good point, it looks like Burgess and Hall made a mistake.. they definitely say "Leninsky District", but this biography (repeated here in English appears to show they are wrong. Thanks for pointing this out.
 * As for the "Pasha" remark, this isn't obvious to English speakers, even though it may be obvious to Russian speakers; so there's no harm in mentioning it. Mlm42 (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for your "Ledengsky" remark? I couldn't verify this.. Mlm42 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To (yo?) Mln42 is absolutely correct. The name Pasha must be clarified because it is used in a quotation in the article. It is not readily known by English speakers and provides context as to who this 'Pasha' is in the citation. 100% of Russian speakers might indeed be known in this manner. However, this is the English wikipedia and very few English speakers would know that Pasha = Pavel, in fact I could not name anyone who knows this in my circle of university educated colleagues. It is not trivial and it is essential for this article. If you want to write the article yourself please do so instead of constantly criticising me, because I am really sick of your negativity when I am trying to improve articles on a topic I have spent many years researching and have, indeed, lectured on the topic at an Australian University; not that I have to justify myself to you. The quality of my editing should speak for itself. By the way, its too trivial. Not 'to'. Aakheperure (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ledengsky" I can source no problem&mdash;I have plenty of sources confirming that Minkovo is located in Babushkinsky District, and that Babushkinsky District was called "Ledengsky" in the 1930s. If you need me to add these sources somewhere, just let me know; I'll do it.
 * On "Pasha", I am stunned beyond words that Aakheperure would accuse me of "negativity" and of "constant criticism". Wasn't the intent of your original thread to ask for general feedback? Granted, you didn't ask me, and granted, it was me who butted into your discussion here, which can be interpreted as impolite (and, if so, I apologize), but I have no idea how what I said can be classified as "negativity", "criticism", or questioning your competence in the topic (??!!). I simply pointed out that calling "Pasha" a person named Pavel is just as trivial for Russians as calling "Bill" a person named William for the Anglophones&mdash;and the latter bit would be deemed too trivial to include in, say, an article about someone named William in the Russian Wikipedia, even if it were a part of a quotation (but I guess I gotta be careful with making such remarks, lest you accuse me of disparaging the intellectual level of the Australian academia and glorifying the erudition of the Russian peasants like me). If you don't think it's trivial, well, fine by me; see if I care! I pointed out what I thought should be pointed out, and if you choose to not use that particular bit of info, that's your right, even though I still think that you might at least consider rephrasing the sentence&mdash;the way it is structured now kind of makes readers think that "Pasha" was some kind of special nickname his family and friends came up with, when in fact it was a simple diminutive. Whatever.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2011; 15:32 (UTC)
 * Ezhiki, you were right to point that Pasha is the diminutive of Pavel (which is also stated in Pasha (disambiguation)).. but I don't think this is an issue worth getting worked up over. Sometimes people are called different things; their articles often mention this.. big deal? Consider the article John F. Kennedy, which mentions the diminutive "Jack" in the opening sentence. I don't see anything wrong with this. The only downside of mentioning "Pasha" is that is draws some "but that's obvious!" criticism; this is far outweighed by the upside, which is that some people will learn something about Pavel Belyayev they didn't know. I've now even added a note to the article stating it's the diminutive form. Mlm42 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't really getting worked up over "Pasha", I was getting worked up over the fact that my comments, which I genuinely intended to be helpful, were called "negative" and critical of Aakheperure's competence. Normally I am a pretty thick-skinned guy, but I've been bombarded with all kinds of crap over the past week... but that's still no excuse. Sorry.
 * If you don't mind my pointing out another thing, I see that you've changed "Leninsky" to "Babushikinsky", but that's not entirely correct. The district was not called "Babushkinsky" until 1941 (and there was no Vologda Oblast until 1937). Also, while Chelishchevo and Minkovo are now both in Babushkinsky District, when Belyayev was born, the former was a part of Roslyatinsky District (of Northern Dvina Governorate), and the latter was a part of Ledengsky District (of Vologda Okrug of Northern Krai). Amidst a number of other administrative changes, Roslyatinsky District was merged into Ledengsky in 1931. All this is definitely too unimportant for an article about the cosmonaut, but the birth reference at least needs to be corrected. Please let me know if I can help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2011; 16:51 (UTC)
 * Feel free to jump in, and correct it as you see fit; I was just using the wording from the sources. Generally I think it's more useful to readers to say the current name of a place, and then maybe in brackets say (then known as something else). This seems to be the convention across Wikipedia. Mlm42 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be jumping in until I get assurances from Aakheperure that he's not going to see my edits as another insult to his intelligence. Better have incorrect information (not that it makes much difference in this case) than lose another editor, eh? Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2011; 17:03 (UTC)
 * Okay; I changed the wording slightly.. is it more accurate now? Mlm42 (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's better now, but I'd change it further to "in what is now called the Babushkinsky District, Vologda Oblast", because "called" implies only the name change, while here there were also numerous administrative changes (I also removed the definite article on purpose&mdash;using it here is not grammatically incorrect, but not using it is equally correct, and the latter is what we normally practice when referring to the Russian districts by name). Also, the link to the district needs to be changed (currently it leads to a set index), and the appropriate lines in the lead and in the infobox need to be corrected as well&mdash;and with those I'm not sure you can use the same "is now called" trick. Specifically, in the infoboxes the places' jurisdictions are normally given in terms used at the time of the event.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2011; 18:02 (UTC)