User talk:WDGraham/May 2014

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 00:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

An article "first" for SpaceX
Hey WD. We are just three days ahead of a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch, and for the first time, no one has created an article for the mission. If you look at List of Falcon 9 launches, there's no article at the link given (OG2 Mission 1) and the one I had thought I had seen somewhere else (Orbcomm OG2) is also still a red link. I don't know if something else exists, but if it does, it hasn't been picked up by the SpaceX-interested editors and put in the list of launches article.

I'm agnostic about the mission article. I don't personally care one way or the other if it gets created. However, the mission article was the norm for the old WP:LAUNCHES guideline, and they usually get created by someone for SpaceX flights, so we are in a bit new territory here.

The launch itself is however, once again, quite notable for the booster recovery tests that follow the booster ascent. It looks like they may actually recover their wet booster this time, as they seem to have succeeded in the soft ocean touchdown last time. Some time ago, I created a redir link for Falcon 9 Flight 10, and that currently points at the main Orbcomm sat constellation article.

So here is my novel thought: I'm thinking of going ahead and creating a launch article, and would just use Falcon 9 Flight 10 as the name, turning the redir into a stub article. However, since this is still rather different from the old order, and in fact, may be one of the first semi-normal launches to have its own article, I'd like to know:
 * 1) what you think about it?
 * 2) if you'd be willing to stop by after I get a stub up and help make the article more standard for WP launches?

Thanks. Look forward to your input. N2e (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to see it a fairly routine launch, but as long as it doesn't replace the function of the payload article(s), doesn't exclude the possibility of future articles on the individual satellites (unlikely to be any time soon for Orbcomms but I'm concerned about the principle) and doesn't end up in Orbital launches in 2014 or the payloads section of 2014 in spaceflight then I'd say create it at Falcon 9 Flight 10. When it was proposed a while back there was no opposition to replacing WP:LAUNCHES with User:WDGraham/Spaceflight notability; maybe now would be a good time to bring it back. -- W.  D.   Graham  18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I don't know what I'll get done on it, as some non-wiki work has intervened.  But if their is no Orbcomm G2 mission 1 article before the launch, I'll be inclined to create the one you mentioned as long as I have the time.  Here is the press kit for OG2 M1:    Looks like that gives the official name SpaceX and O/ATK are calling the mission.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is a launch article then the title should be rocket name, not payload/mission name. I would be very much opposed to any title with the word "Orbcomm" in it. -- W.  D.   Graham  18:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with you entirely on that point. I am assuming Falcon 9 Flight 10 if I create it.  N2e (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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) 23:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

ZACUBE-1 Naming
Hi, Could you please revert the changes made on 25 May regarding the naming of the CubeSat? As per the project page (http://www.cput.ac.za/blogs/fsati/zacube-1/) and the top plate on the satellite it self (http://www.cput.ac.za/blogs/fsati/2013/12/09/commemorative-top-plate/) the name is correct in all capitals as it was originally.Leonsteenkamp (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The satellite's operators use allcaps to emphasise its name. Wikipedia does not follow this convention unless there is another reason to capitalise it - for example if the name is an initialism. -- W.  D.   Graham  22:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted, but whatever the reason, the satellite's name is/was ZACUBE-1 and is used as such on all official communication, and also on the two-line elements for the satellite. My issue is that having a wikipedia article with the suggested heading will encourage the use of an incorrectly stylised version of the name, a current example of this is articles by AMSAT. If having the article heading and/or page name with all capital letters is completely out of the question I would rather suggest moving the article to the TshepisoSat redirect page and have the other pages redirect there.Leonsteenkamp (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference there is that AMSAT is an initialism, ZACube isn't. I think TshepisoSat is too obscure to use as the article name. -- W.  D.   Graham  09:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that in some of the earlier AMSAT articles they referred to the satellite as "ZACube-1" not "ZACUBE-1". It seems that they too are now using the correct "ZACUBE-1". The name TshepisoSat is definitely not obscure. The following article uses, in error, the name "ZACube-1", the correct name "ZACUBE-1" and references the changing of the name to TshepisoSat through a schools compitition: http://amsat-uk.org/2013/12/15/first-image-captured-by-tshepisosat-zacube-1 . We as a group (I helped build the satellite and am currently operating it, my name is on the top plate mentioned above) feel that, in this case, having the name written correctly in the Wikipedia article should take  precedence over style, otherwise the article is technically not correct and that this is reason enough to ignore this style rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules).Leonsteenkamp (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)