Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2007 Reorganisation/Archive 1

Rocketry

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . 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 discussion was Implement--GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC) While "launch vehicles" was somewhat restrictive, I'm concerned that rocketry, generally speaking, is not a proper subset of Space at all. (Many missiles are rockets. Many other rockets do not reach or attempt to reach space.) And in theory, not all launches are by means of rocketry. (E.g.: elevator contraptions.) Perhaps "launch vehicles" could be replaced with "spacecraft propulsion"? That would include launch, station-keeping, interplanetary propulsion. Sdsds 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to withdraw the concerns expressed above, and instead express support for the rename: WikiProject Launch vehicles → WikiProject Rocketry. Two lines of reasoning support this rename, one is about the content of the articles and one is about the social aspect of the project. Although not every theoretical launch vehicle is necessarily a rocket, all real-world examples are. If a time ever came, years in the future, when space launches happen by means other than rocketry, that would be the time to reconsider. Until then, space launch is a subset of rocketry. On the other hand, the commonality in technology between launch vehicles and ICBMs is crystal clear. Many, many LVs are derived from ICBMs. From a wiki-social perspective, the LV contributors will benefit from closer interaction with the military history (and current military weaponry) experts. Sdsds 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, the project seems to consider itself responsible for missiles now anyway. I would say it would be better to have just one project handling all rockets (including missiles and rockets that do not reach space) as this will eliminate long term confusion, and hopefully prevent a missiles or sounding rocket project from starting up. A rocketry project could also handle other aspects of rocketry, such as launch sites. Space Elevators are farfetched concepts, do we really need to change the name just for them? I'm sure that a project named "Rocketry" would be just as adapted to handling these as anything else. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * you seem to be implying that they shouldn't be responsible for missiles? is that because missiles aren't technically launch vehicles? in any case, i do agree that the general name "Rocketry" is more appealing.. and although this would mean it's not purely contained within the Space wikiproject, i don't think that's a problem, since at the moment it claims to be descended from the Wikiproject Transport. Also, perhaps they should be collaborating with the fairly large (57 members) Weaponry task force, which includes missiles. Mlm42 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy for it to handle missiles, if it doesn't call itself "Launch Vehicles". A collaboration with weaponry could be an option to consider. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that rocketry well can belong to Space, unless there elsewhere is a fanatical rocketry (chemists or military) wikiproject claiming rockets for themselves. If the main use of rockets is atmospheric and space, the connection between rockets and space is good enough. Rursus 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the absense of any further objections, I'm going to notify members and post at RM. Then I'll give it a week, and see what happens. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing a day early seeing as it had already been under discussion for a while before RM procedures started, there has been no further discussion, and the only opposistion to the change has been withdrawn. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . 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.

Mars
The result was "upmerged", so to say, to include everything Mars. Discussion about task forces should be in a new section, as this appears to be more controversial. MER-C 07:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently WikiProject Martian Geography starts with "The purpose of this WikiProject is to create, expand, improve and standardize articles about geographical features, such as craters, mountains, and canyons, on the planet Mars. This is very much a work in progress." - if it's going to be a general Mars Wikiproject this sentence should be changed so that people know the purpose of the page. Also it then makes sence to change the name to WikiProject Mars. Then, later, if people want a separate WikiProject Martian Geography they can create a new one. An alternative strategy is just to start a new Mars project - but the consensus here seems to be against more projects - there has already been some discussion here - do please comment..., regards sbandrews 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've notified the members of this project about the proposed rename. I suggest that we wait a few days, and if there is not objection, just rename it to "Mars" or merge it with "Mars". At this point we could rewrite the intro, and modify the banners. Lunokhod 22:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work, meanwhile I notice the Mars article has been nominated for FA - if you know of any areas that need working on post them on mars talk or wikiproject mars geography, regards sbandrews 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I support a generalized Mars project, though I apologize for not being active in it as much as I'd like to. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also support the idea.. Although ive always thought that we shouldnt be using the term 'geology'.. Seeing as geology is an Earth based word (geology coming from the greek word ge-, which means 'earth', or 'the land'), i think we should be using Areology (from Ares, a greek god, called Mars by the Romans). I've heard it used in a few books (mostly in the Red_Mars series of books) and i think it would set apart Martian geology from Terran Geology as a completely seperate field of study.. Just throwing it out there, realise most people wouldn't get it. It would be nice to start a trend :P In conclusion though im all for a generalized Mars project :) -- Atura 17:03, 26 February 2007 (AEST)
 * I'm also in favour of a general Mars project. As for the "Are-" prefixes, i remember having a lengthy discussion regarding this.. after a while i became convinced that it wasn't widely used, and was better to go with an understandable term. also, it seemed the word areography was used for something completely different in biology, i believe.. Mlm42 10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you may be right, there is too much similarity between areology and areography, and people would be confused by the term. I suppose once you start having a new term for each planet's geography, you quickly become inundated with hundreds of different words all meaning the same thing. Joviology anyone? Atura 03:47, 4 March 2007 (AEST)

I wouldn't mind a general Mars Wikiproject but I'd stop there. "Task force" seems like a meaningless buzzword. I doubt the proposal to make WP:MARS a task force will succeed, as five of the project members (including me) have said that the result should be a generalised Mars project. The speedy tag has slipped off, so once we have consensus (currently 6/0/4) we are going to have to do a requested move. Or just ask Marskell to do it. MER-C 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * don't we have consensus? what is the 4 in (6/0/4)? sbandrews 09:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No opinion (yet). I'd like to see one more !vote in favour to put the result beyond doubt, then we'll start moving and assimilating stuff. MER-C 10:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to make it a project, I was just concerned there were too many, so it would be better off as a specified part of another one. I'll withdraw this, and support making WP:MARS a full project. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 13:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * good, I understand your concern, but to have a Mars project rather than a Mars Geography one is at least a step in the right direction, and having a Mars geography project and no mars one just led to confusion as to where to post - ditto Mars spacecraft, thanks for your support :)sbandrews 15:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * completed changeover sbandrews (t) 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

mars spacecraft
Project was subsumed by WP:MARS. MER-C 08:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I notified members of this project that were not also members of Wikiproject Martian geography about the proposed merger into wikiproject mars and wikiproject space exploration - put any comments here, regards sbandrews 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that a merge of Mars spacecraft to unmanned space missions is the next least controversial step to take. Lunokhod 11:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yup - is it done through Merging and moving pages? It's not something I've done before. sbandrews 11:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to give ~ 1 week's notice of my intention to merge a wikiproject on the project's talk page. Adding the merge banners would probably also be a good idea. If noone objects, then I redirect the main wikiproject page to the replacement project's page, making sure content is moved over if appropriate, and also link to the old wikiproject's talk page in the "archives" section of the replacement project. Make sure you add an archived talk header to the old page.
 * Moving the project page to a subpage of the new project might be a better idea than just setting it as a redirect, though. Also, make sure to check for double redirects, and try to remove references to the old wikiproject from the rest of wikipedia {excluding talk pages, of course). Mike Peel 09:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ye I like the sub-page idea, will do it this week sbandrews (t) 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * since the unmanned space missions is inactive and is itself the subject of a proposed merger I am moving all usable content from WP Mars Spacecraft to WP Mars for now - will also re-tag the 30 or so MSproject tagged pages with the WPMars tag. After that I propose just to do a redirect to WPMars, then if anyone wants to start Mars spacecraft up again in the future they can with minimal fuss. sbandrews (t) 20:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

update
I updated the counts in the member list box. I also moved constellations out from under solar system in the proposed table above.--mikeu 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

redirection of talk pages
I've been thinking about how to combine the Moon and Mars projects with the parent Solar System project, and have come up with the following idea: What if we just leave the projects as they are, but redirect the talk pages to the Solar System talk page? (I assume that this is technically possible.) I think the Moon and Mars subprojects are useful, as they track only the related articles, and have done article assessments. If we were to combine all solar system subjects under one banner and assessment scheme, it would be much harder for those who are interested in only improving the lunar and martian pages to do so. As an example, there are about 150 Moon related topics. Lunokhod 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we use to have a specific need to be able to filter out every message except those pertaining to a certain topic. That's kind of an information technology problem: what info-hierarchy do we use for which filtering-out, and how do we do the filtering? But on the other hand (this is also a central IT-problem) how do we keep the overview when delving deep in an info-hierarchy? For that question I propose: a Space newsletter group making notes about the events of the week (such as votes, new articles, heroic editor deeds etc.), and a template for interproject surfing. I'll soon make a pröpösäl ... Rursus 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure redirecting the talk pages is a good idea; discussions for separate projects, and even task forces, should be kept separate.. otherwise they essentially would become the same project. personally, i'm a big fan of having a big wikiproject, like WP:MILHIST, and several task forces. then things like assessment can be handled in a unified way (see WikiProject Military history/Assessment for awe-inspiring organization). The analogy here could be to have the Space wikiproject the main one, and everything else task forces.. although this seems a little too drastic of a move, since some of the projects are quite well-established. Mlm42 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons for redirecting only the talk page would be to help reach a critical mass in active participants. Discussion of the Moon, for examples, clearly falls under the domain of Solar System, and Solar System participants could probably help in addressing lunar issues. Nevertheless, the Moon project page, with its templates, article assessments, to do list, etc., would still remain. In principle I agree with you, but not having a critical mass of participants renders the project useless. Lunokhod 11:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So if you are looking for more participants for the Moon project, then there are several methods of recruitment; alternatively, if you think it would be better to have everyone in a Solar System project discussing Moon issues, then that sounds essentially like a merger, with no need for a separate Moon Wikiproject. All i'm saying is that i believe some (most?) of the main content of a wikiproject exists on its talk page(s), so by removing that feels like it is taking the heart out of the project.. maybe that's just my impression, though. Mlm42 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If Moon (or Martian Geography) is merged with Solar System, what should we do about the article assessments? There are about 150 lunar topics (and it looks like the same number for Mars) that have a Moon project banner on them, and which have been assessed in some manner. Do we replace the Moon project banner with the Solar System banner? Or do we keep the lunar project banner on these articles, and keep the "lunar assessments" as is? This would create a multi-tiered assessment scheme for solar system if every planet did the same thing. Lunokhod 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lunokhod here – reaching a critical mass for fusion is necessary for the star to burn ... if you get my point. Requesting a merger between Apis and Musca Borealis on the talk page gave no response, but doing it on the Talk:Astronomical objects gave a fast response, making my editing more confident. Rursus 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, perhaps redirecting the talk pages would be a good idea; in any case it's something that isn't difficult to undo. As for the article assessments, 150 articles is a lot to replace, especially with a relatively new Solar System tag. May want to see how the reorganization settles onto before changing around banners. Mlm42 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I like my original proposal anymore. The more I think about it, the more that I think that a "lunar and martian task force", as subpages of Solar system, might be the best solution. The task force subpage would in essence be in charge of article assessments, templates, etc, but all discussions would be given on the main project talk page. Lunokhod 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Organigram
This is a 20 minute hack. Feel free to change it. I don't think the member count and assessment status are necessary, but we could add them. We could also add links to talk pages, or portals. Lunokhod 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I did a similar, but deemed it too big! Something like yours (including the logo), but more compact. I'll think more about how to compress the navbox. Rursus 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Another one:


 * but still somewhat too big! What c o l o u r scheme shall we use, by the way? Rursus 14:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The color's fine. The green scheme was taken from military history, which is not appropriate here.

Spaceprojnav:

Looks great. I'm not sure if the "project discussion" link is necessary though. Lunokhod 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * THX103! If not needed, we can just remove it. Rursus 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the above proposal, Solar System is contained in Astronomy, while in these banners this is not the case.. was this intentional? i like the blue colour scheme. Mlm42 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that solar system should be one of the three main categories. Lunokhod 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then Lunokhod, please make a comment about it under the heading Revised structure, so that we treat template design separately from structure revision! Rursus 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The banner is just now in a preliminary state that is to be updated in accord to the proposal. No intentions except as a proof of banner template concept. Rursus 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For superfluous (?) info: the template is kind of implemented, see any Space related WikiProject page. Rursus 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

article assessments
what are current thoughts on article assessments? it seems somehow more organized to have only 3 banners, one for each of Astronomy, Solar System, and Space Exploration, (or whatever the main WikiProjects will be). Then each of these banners could further specify decendant projects or task forces, but would ulitmately have one assessment scheme each. At the moment there seems to be a few redundant assessment schemes and banners which should probably by unified (i.e. Moon and Mars should be unified under Solar System). but i'm not sure how much work such a unification would entail.. Mlm42 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Astronomy and Astronomical Object banners are already unified. The both use Template:WPAstronomy but the latter is tagged with an Object=Yes parameter.  Perhaps this could be extended.  (ie. Object=moon)  I'm not sure that this is desirable, but it might be something to consider.  Actually making changes like splitting Solar System articles off from Astronomical Objects will likely require some work.  There are a large number of asteroids.  Could a bot help with this?--mikeu 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. Nevertheless, we should be clear that this is probably going to kill off the Moon and Mars projects. These would have to become "task forces" of Solar System, and the old projects will probably just become a subpage containing templates and other things. I don't see the Moon and Mars projects reaching a critical mass anytime soon, and if they do, we can always spin them off again. Perhaps if someone could build the template, this would start to move this from discussion to reality. Lunokhod 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely clear between a "project" and a "task force".. i think i will allow the Solar system banner to include an importance scale.. is that a good idea? Mlm42 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On second thought, i'm not sure about the importance scale.. the way i've done it is to allow the Moon and Mars projects (/ task forces..) to keep their own importance ratings; it would be difficult to merge these rating since they are so subjective. Mlm42 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging templates
Would it be possible to unite all assessments into one template? , or some such. It could read something along the lines of: "This article is a part of WikiProject Space. The such-and-such taskforce, which is a part of such-and-such sub-project, oversees this article." If several task forces oversee it (Apollo 11, for instance), the template could have room for that. This way we could keep the template standard and easy to change.--Miguel Cervantes 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the suggestion of a unified WikiProject Space template, that would by default have a single assessment, but which (by throwing options) would support the ability for sub-projects to assess e.g. importance independently. So either:
 * or
 * would work as expected. The original question, though, remains: "How difficult is that to implement?" And add to that, "Has it already been done somewhere else?" Sdsds 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * would work as expected. The original question, though, remains: "How difficult is that to implement?" And add to that, "Has it already been done somewhere else?" Sdsds 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, there's a thought.. I like the idea of having one banner. What do others think of this?


 * In terms of how difficult it is to implement, it would take some time, but ultimately not too difficult.. in the long run a single banner would likely save a lot of work. The military history banner WPMILHIST has options like this.. although they don't assess article importance to my knowledge, i think something like what Sdsds suggests, where different sub-projects could have their own importance assessment, is possible, and probably a good idea.


 * Before putting too much work into this, though, we should probably have a clear idea of any further reorganization.. for example, WikiProject Martian Geography recently changed its name to WikiProject Mars, but all the articles are still assessed in Category:Martian geography articles by quality, and it will take some extra work to clean this up. Mlm42 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge the WPSpace and WPAstronomy templates - I (and possibly other editors) may have little or no interest in the manned space program but may have a very strong interest in astronomy. I therefore would not find it useful to merge everything under "space". As I have stated before, manned space exploration and astronomy should be maintained as separate topics. They actually have little overlap. Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * i am aware that some editors have an interest in astronomy and no interest in the manned space program, but i don't see this as a reason not to merge the templates. take, for example, the many branches of WP:MILHIST.. i'm sure there are quite a few editors who aren't interested in every aspect of the project.


 * I believe one of the benefits of this Space projects' reorganization is to bring together editors who are interested in similar topics. But I don't see how merging the banners would discourage editors who aren't interested in certain topics.. so, i think we could do with a few more opinions about merging the banners.


 * For clarity, I should say that although the banners would be merged, the article assessments would be kept separate, just like in WP:MILHIST. When, for example, the banner includes Astronomy=yes, then certain options for how the banner looks could be triggered, etc.. the technology is there. Mlm42 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with even merging the banners. In real life, most amateur and professional astronomers have little or no interest in manned space organization, and most people involved in manned space exploration have limited experience with or interest in astronomy.  (The comparison to military history is inappropriate, as all military historians will have some background in military history subjects by default.)  I simply want the subjects kept separate.  If you want to merge the templates, you should also discuss the issue with Mike Peel, who created the WPAstronomy template in the first place and who may have some opinions on the subject.  Dr. Submillimeter 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding what it would mean to merge the banners.. on subjects that are only part of astronomy, the banner could essentially look the same, except with an extra like to the WikiProject Space - is that a bad thing? The article assessments would remain unchanged.. importance ratings could be kept separate - i.e. multiple different importance ratings if an article falls under multiple sub-projects, but a single quality rating. is that unreasonable?


 * Just because we merge the banners doesn't mean we are merging the subjects.. although i understand there are a lot of articles that do not overlap (most, in fact), one must also note that there are a considerable number that do overlap - hence the desire to merge. Mlm42 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, in the merged banners is the importance rating the same for each wikiproject involved? That is maybe a problem, because the importance of topics will vary between, say jupiter and the moon, but still be relevent to both... sbandrews (t) 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If the banner is going to be used for importance ratings, then it definitely should not be used for both manned space exploration and astronomy. Messier 81, for example, would have a negligible importance in terms of manned space exploration but high importance in astronomy (at least professional astronomy). A rating for one project would not be meaningful for another.  Dr. Submillimeter 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When I first had this idea, my thought was that each article could be rated as needed. Messier 81, for instance, would not be part of the Space exploration WikiProject as it currently stands, so there would be no need to rate it for the Manned Space Exploration task force. The ratings would only come into play when two or more task forces have overlapping domains -- my original example, Apollo 11, could fit into the Timeline, Human Spaceflight, and Lunar task forces. Obviously, they have different amounts of importance to each. --Miguel Cervantes 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * that's right, and it's quite possible to assign different importance ratings for the different task forces with the same banner. Mlm42 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, nvm, I just got round to actually *reading* this thread, doh, i'll get my coat.. sbandrews (t) 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to Template:WPAstronomy being subsumed into a new Template:WPSpace. However, I do have some suggestions:
 * Don't use importance ratings. In my experience, they tend to be rather subjective, and I'm always wary of backlash from editors of an article if I say that it's of low importance. Template:WPBiography uses a "priority" flag, which might work well here: see WikiProject_Biography/Assessment for an explanation.
 * WPAstronomy currently uses flags to identify which projects the page falls under, and the page only appears on the worklists of those projects if appropriate. The exception is that the page falls under astronomy if no flags are set. I would encourage that something like this continues to be the case: all tagged pages would fall under the Space WikiProject; flags would be used to include them in the sub-wikiprojects (e.g. Astronomy, Space Exploration, ...)
 * Bear in mind that there's also an interaction with WikiProject Physics, in that some articles fall under astrophysics, which are covered by both WP Physics and WP Astronomy. There should probably also be links with the Biology and Chemistry wikiprojects too (astrobiology and astrochemistry respectively), but those haven't yet been needed. Coding support for all three of these into the new template might be an idea (suggest using 'astrophysics=yes', 'astrobiology=yes' and 'astrochemistry=yes' flags, so there's the potential for new wikiproject dedicated to those areas to spring up if needed.)
 * As I wrote the WPAstronomy template, I'm intimately familiar with how it works. I could fairly easily generalise it to make the WPSpace banner, if people want; at the very least I can play a supporting role in getting the new template working. Mike Peel 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Leveraging the work done for Template:WPBiography makes lots of sense, particularly mimicing their use of "priority" rather than "importance". A banner could read, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. This article is supported by the Astronomy work group, who give it High priority. This article is also supported by the Space Exploration work group, who give it Mid priority." ( The point of a priority is to allow work group members to see where their co-workers feel work most needs to be done. But if the Astronomers don't see any benefit to sharing templates with the Explorers, that's OK too, eh?) Sdsds 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of priority would Arp 220 be given? The general public and amateur astronomers probably care little about the galaxy, but the galaxy is intensively studied by professional astronomers. Dr. Submillimeter 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, yes: an example helps. Thanks for making this clearer. I withdraw my suggestion regarding priority. Also it seems WPBiography has only -- somewhat misleadingly -- renamed importance to priority, without really giving it a new meaning. Sdsds 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was not trying to argue against the system, but I guess my example did show some POV problems with listing articles by importance. (Arp 220 needs significant expansion in my opinion.)  Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the reason for the priority terminology for WPBiography is to avoid somebody reading the wikipedia page about themselves and discovering that they are Low-importance! In any case, it should be noted that some subprojects, such as WPMoon and WPMars, are already using an importance scale, and i wouldn't want the new banner to take that away from them. So, i had thought a few subprojects could have importance options while others don't.. i.e. 'Mars-importance=Mid', or 'Moon-importance=High' would be the assessments, and maybe 'importance=Low' would do nothing? Mlm42 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather than just having one template, why not just modify the individual templates to show they belong to a bigger project called Space - this has the advantage that individual sub projects could still modify their templates to suit their own needs - i.e. have an importance flag or not or make changes in the future - and also allow them to display the image relevent to thier speciality, keeping that personal touch. There would be no need for complicated mars-importance like flags and the wiki-code in the template which is already long and complicated could be prevented from getting any bigger - as it stands it's just about as much as I can decipher, regards sbandrews (t) 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

test template
Rather than talking about this too much, i went ahead and did what i was talking about, so that we can decide whether or not we like it. It's found at WPSpace.. i haven't finished implementing all the possible projects, but to do so won't be much work. See User:Mlm42/test for an example that shows everything i have done.. i believe it adds the correct categories, and each related project can have their own little image, and the projects with importance ratings can add those as well. let me know what you think. Mlm42 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have several requests for modifications:
 * Please use lower-case words for the variables (in line with the majority of templates here)
 * I personally prefer underscores (_) rather than dashes (-) to separate phrases, but that's just a personal opinion.
 * Please rename the "physics" tag to "astrophysics", and if possible add "astrochemistry" and "astrobiology".
 * The other wikiprojects also need to have flags added.
 * As a thought, it should be possible to create redirects to the template from the existing templates, to save having to replace them all. I'll try writing something to do that when this template's progressed a bit further. Mike Peel 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * i've changed to lower-case variables, and renamed physics to astrophysics (although, there doesn't appear to be an astrophysics project?). other projects' flags are still to come.. what do you mean about the underscore/dashes? are you refering to the mars-importance and moon-importance variables?


 * that's a really good idea about the redirect; it would probably make for a smooth transition.. as long as people are happy with having a single banner? i thought it was still a bit up in the air whether we are going forward with this.. Mlm42 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I prefer 'astrophysics' to 'physics' as Template:Physics exists, which this template doesn't replace (although it does supplement it). That's in contrast to, say, "astronomy", which doesn't have its own template. Plus, it makes it easier in the future if an astrophysics project is set up.
 * With underscores vs. dashes, I was referring to "astro_object" vs. "astro-object". The same would apply to the importance flags. It's only a minor point, though. Both are in common usage, I believe; I just prefer underscores.
 * It seems pointless to have multiple templates doing the same job; I can't see any reason for keeping around if we have something like . Of course, whether or not  is put into use is still up for decision.
 * Assuming that we do use WPSpace, I've set the code up for a WPAstronomy redirect at User:Mike Peel/template2; see for an example of it in use. Once WPSpace is ready to go, then this code can replace that currently at WPAstronomy (with an explanation of what it does). It would be easy to set up similar redirects for the other existing templates. Mike Peel 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, well as far as i can tell, the new banner now has the same (in fact more) functionality of WPAstronomy, WPSS, WPMoon, WPMars and WP Space exploration.. did i miss any? Unless i'm mistaken, it's good to go.

i've only added the subprojects which have an assessment scheme already set up. We could also add other projects, such as the Constellations task force, or Timeline of Spaceflight, or Launch vehicles, but before doing so, should we consider setting up an assessment scheme for them at the same time? (indeed, assessments for WikiProject Space isn't set up yet) Mlm42 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * although it can be easily changed back, i've replaced WP Space exploration with WPSpace everywhere.. hopefully this won't break everything :S Mlm42 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! I wonder about the wording, though. Currently the banner might read, "Top Space exploration-Importance". I would have expected maybe, "Space-exploration Importance: Top". (Thinking this was an easy modification I peeked at the template code, but couldn't figure out which hyphens were part of the generated text and which were part of variable names.) Sdsds 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * i think that's done now.. had to make some new templates, but i think it works. Mlm42 10:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Submillimeter has expressed concern that the first link on the banner is WikiProject Space, which perhaps isn't to most direct route to answer somebody's question. For example, if the article were covered under Astronomy, perhaps having a WikiProject Astronomy link first would be better? Mlm42 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have some concerns with it: — Pious7Talk <sup style="color:purple;">Contribs 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The portal linked on it is Portal:Space (an under-construction portal), when Portal:Astronomy and Portal:Solar System are both functional and done well. I will take my issue with Portal:Space to, however.
 * The moon image is cartoonish. I've always preferred a real photo that can be used when it can be used. It makes it look nicer (in my opinion), but regardless of my opinion, continuity is key for something looking good. If everything else uses a photo, the Moon cartoon is out of place.
 * This is more of a suggestion: This opportunity should be used to add importance levels to Astronomy and Solar System articles as part of the transition to them as two of the main projects (Space Exploration already has an importance level).
 * "Related projects" should be hidable for people who do not want to see the huge list of WikiProjects on some of them (e.g. Talk:Moon).

Good idea folks
My main interest is the WikiProject Television, but once in a while, when I feel like doing something else, I do some small edits to some space related articles. I was really surprised to find so many of them in such a bad state, especially some of the older Soyuz and Space shuttle missions. I think this reorganization is gonna be really good to focus the efforts of the editors. Since June 2006 I have been striving to get Wikipedia Television viable again, and together with a couple of other editors who see the importance of better editor directions for sub-wikiprojects and taskforces, I think I can say we have succeeded. Really the only thing I still want to tackle is setting up a good assessment department, because it's currently a tad inactive. I would like to say that you guys should keep at it. The people will come once they see there are more editors committed to properly organizing it. Don't be afraid to take action. WikiProject rules can always be changed, you just need to get the discussion started and making changes is often the only way. Also, the collecting of templates like suggested above is a really good thing. The templates are often the glue that links all the articles in your WikiProject together. Keeping an eye on them, and making their appearances "familiar" will improve the reading experience of others. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)