User talk:WDGraham/December 2013

The "no epoch" template
Hi. I was looking at a couple of our space flight articles this morning (the outgrowth of a thread on Talk:Apollo 11), and I came across the template at the top of Apollo 14 urging that epoch information be added in conjunction with the orbital elements. Being a space history aficionado but not (in any sense of the term) a rocket scientist, I don't understand the template, and I am sure that 99%+ of the readers on an article like Apollo 14 won't understand it either.

My naïve initial reaction, which I expect is ill-informed is along the lines of "the flight only lasted a few days; the orbital elements can't have changed much in that time period, and in any event the 'epoch' can't have changed." I am sure it's more complicated than that, but I've looked at the template documentation and elsewhere, and I haven't found a clear explanation of what the problem is, exactly, or how the articles bearing this template could be improved to address them. I'd appreciate if you could explain it to me, and perhaps add it to the template documentation as well so others won't also be confused.

Also, assuming that the template is warranted because the articles do need to be fixed&mdash;do you think there is somewhere we could post the same request for a fix, without a prominent and somewhat distracting template across the tops of the articles?

Thanks for any information you can provide. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With regards the epoch for orbital elements, it does refer to the date at which those elements were correct. In the context of a mission such as Apollo 14, the orbital elements would have changed quite dramatically as the spacecraft manoeuvred in orbit, and knowing when the elements given were accurate (especially those in the infobox) is important to put them in the correct context. I didn't feel that any of the existing templates covered the problem, so I created no epoch and based it on Time-context. If you feel something more subtle such as an inline template would be more appropriate then I'd be quite happy to look at ways to change it - I'm just not sure an inline template could convey its purpose clearly. Otherwise I'll have a think about how the wording of the existing template could be improved. -- W.  D.   Graham  22:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if the information that needs to be added is reasonably accessible, the best solution would simply be for a knowledgeable person to add it&mdash;but I know that's easy for me to say. You obviously know what you're talking about&mdash; although I still frankly don't :) &mdash;but I do think it's fair to say that when a new reader comes to a page like Apollo 14, for that template to be the first thing he or she sees isn't optimal. (P.S. I watchlist pages I edit; "talkback" not needed.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it isn't ideal, but it's no different in appearance from other templates of this nature. I will look into whether an inline version is practical, and try to reword the template to make the issue clearer. With regards adding the data, it is very difficult to find an epoch date for a given set of elements, so in practise it is far easier to go out and find a new set of orbit data and replace the lot. This is relatively straightforward but tedious for satellites which are currently orbiting the Earth, but somewhat more difficult for spacecraft no longer in orbit (data is available, but ensuring it is representative of when the spacecraft was in use is tricky) and much harder for spacecraft operating beyond Earth orbit since there is no central catalogue of their orbits. I generally do try to add elements myself if I can find them, unless I am making semi-automated edits as was the case with most of my additions of no epoch. I'm currently in the process of slowly going back over the Earth-orbit examples and trying to add data. -- W.  D.   Graham  23:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To give me a bit more of a sense of what is involved here, could you perhaps point me to an article that does have this information included and formatted correctly, so I can compare it to the ones that have the tags? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * CBERS-2B is probably a good example, as it includes orbit data both in the infobox and the article text. -- W.  D.   Graham  11:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
THIS particular TB is about a specific conversion on a specific B-class article.

See also that I pinged you "again" on the TB two sections above this one, re a different topic (|sp=us parm in the convert template). Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC) N2e (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR Spacefligh articles Talkback
N2e (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Again. I've added two comments to your two comments.  N2e (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Responded. N2e (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)