Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Archive 2

deprecated template
Please help I have nominated TLS-H for deletion. It has been deprecated for a year (and replaced with TLS-H2), with only eight transclusions left in the article namespace. Please help replace all instances of the old template with the new one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not rush into doing this, the Timeline of spaceflight has special guidelines on the use of the replacement and it is not easy to learn on-the-fly. See WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight/Timeline Status for the status. -MBK004 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

new template!
I created Spacecraft propulsion today, and placed it in the relevant articles. Was just wondering if someone with expertise in the area could check it out, and make sure I haven't made any glaring mistakes? Anxietycello (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lunar ascent stage module someone please
Hi, I have no idea how to nowadays improve wikipedia. Someone with rights and that knowledge please: The lunar ascent stage Thrust is wrong. The correct conversion from lbf (not lbs) to Newton is 4.4... Astronautix states the Thrust as over 15000N. not 1600. And the Thrust to weight looks better then, too. How could this slip through? You need more Thrust than you weigh. I mean it is lunar gravity, but at 1.623m/sec^2*4700kg and 1600N Thrust you never move up. It has to be more than 1. not .something. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.75.237 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

New portal
There is a new Star portal..pls add it to your watch list!!..tks!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

display globe in Infobox crater data
In response to a request at Template talk:Infobox Mercury crater, I'd like to change Template:Infobox crater data to display the globe parameter (if supplied). This should help make clear which planet, dwarf planet, or natural satellite the crater is located on, in case it's not clear from the context. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Space
Portal:Space says it is under construction, otherwise it is not categorized.

It does not seem to be under construction, but more or less completed...

76.66.192.73 (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree it looks fine..have removed go ahead and do your Category thing that you do :)  thanks !!Moxy (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

article naming artificial vs man-made vs human-made
See these articles, whichever may or may not exist at the time of reading, for issues going on with the terms "aritifical" vs. "man-made" vs. "human-made". Didn't know if there was a previous discussion or consensus which may apply. And while that applies to just one article, things like List of artificial objects on extra-terrestrial surfaces may also come into play. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 16:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * List of human-made objects on the Moon
 * List of man-made objects on the Moon
 * List of artificial objects on the Moon

Missing topics
I've updated my list of missing topics related to astronomy and space - Skysmith (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Moons of Saturn
I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_ Zero 12:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Mars' FPR
Mars has been nominated for a featured portal review. Portals are typically reviewed for one week. During this review, editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the portal from featured status. Please leave your comments and help us to return the portal to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, portals may lose its status as featured portals. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Launch location
Launch details mistakenly state that the launch will be from the Kennedy Space Center. All NASA Atlas V launches are from either Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), FL, or Vandenberg Air Force Station (VAFB), CA. This particular one will launch from Launch Complex-41 at CCAFS.163.205.222.38 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Er...what launch are you referring to? - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 15:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

List of spacecraft
The list of spacecraft needs expansion. I'll leave it to this WPs members to decide how best to organise it (by country, by decade?) and what goes in and what is kept out. Mjroots (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Spaceport infobox?
I think there is now a need for a spaceport infobox to go on the top of spaceport article pages (e.g. Template:Infobox spaceport).

It's true that we already have Template:Infobox Launch Pad, but that template is not nearly expansive enough for many modern spaceports. Several of them, such as Mojave spaceport and Spaceport America, are using Template:Infobox airport. That does make some sense, considering the fact that many modern spaceports (especially newer ones like Spaceport America) share much in common with airports. However, spaceports are not airports. Template:Infobox airport doesn't cover some areas that are relevant to spaceports.

I suggest that we make a Template:Infobox spaceport that at the very least is a clone of Template:Infobox airport with the addition of a  launch pad  section (between the  runway  and  helipad  sections). --Spacepace1001 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better to just upgrade Infobox airport (or Infobox Launch Pad). Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Template edit
See this. If it is acceptable, I suggest we adopt it across all the templates of the series. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. 70.29.212.131 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Star
Please note that Portal:Star has been renominated for featured status. --Extra 999 (Contact me +  contribs) 16:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

List of manned spacecraft
FYI, has been prodded for deletion. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

LeRoy E. Cain
Opening still lists his former job position at Kennedy Space Center. In the body, it lists his return to Johnson Space Center. NASA has not updated his bio so they can't be the official source, however his fan page on Facebook lists it under user input information. Two family members belong and both live in Texas. --DizFreak talk Contributions 07:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reaction Engines Limited
The above article needs improving and more references, and I am curious if anyone is willing to help...-- Gniniv (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Project Icarus
FYI, Project Icarus has been proposed to be split. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Space Related Authors and Historians
Is this a topic the project is interested in? Examples in my opinion would be Andrew Chaikin, Francis French, and Ed Buckbee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crkey (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Halley Armada
I was reading about Halley's Comet and the "Halley Armada" but couldn't find any evidence that the "armada" was an official name. Is the term "Halley Armada" simply the unofficial name given to the group of space craft sent to study the comet? I think it's important to make the distinction between official and unofficial so people don't think that the probes were part of a concerted united effort to study Halley's Comet if it was really more of a coincidence and was then just given a nickname. Coinmanj (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As this issue is about the subject and not really to do with the WikiProject it is probably more appropriate to discuss this on the article's talk page, Talk:Halley Armada, I'll put my reply there. That being said, it's worth saying this article really deserves a little expansion if anyone's interested. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

--You're right it does belong there. I'm sorry, I just saw the "project" boxes and failed to see that I could open a discussion there. Coinmanj (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation and Improvement
Re:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Archive_1

The problems related to this point and discussion, a running theme in this talk page, I don’t think have adequately been solved. Given the scope of the entire Wikiproject Space (inc. the daughter projects) there are very few members overall, a very significant number of listed members are either inactive editors or are duplicates from other projects in the family.

I’ve been itching to help significantly upgrade the quality of the projects to get more people involved, but that’s difficult until the fundamental structure is solved.

I think one way to solve the issue is to move to a different structural paradigm and seeing how the present structure could fit into that. For instance earlier someone created a European Space Agency taskforce in Wikiproject Europe, WikiProject Europe/ESA. Given that those editing in the space field are likely to be able to provide more technical information why is this not an official taskforce of the Wikiproject Spaceflight instead? This is important as I’ve been trying to improve the generally poor space agency pages (beginning with Italian Space Agency) but seeking interested editors is difficult.

I think a major expansion of the taskforce structure is precisely what the broader topic needs, having specific related groups working within each project will encourage more people to engage with those wider projects, while not diluting the pool of members. On the contrary it should greatly increase involvement with people with even very niche interests being supported by the collaboration, some of the most successful projects on Wikipedia I've seen have a formal taskforce structure to subdivide them. What's more it's very adaptable, once a taskforce has grown it can easily become its own wikiproject. There is also the case for the opposite on currently low-member projects.

This was seemingly proposed in a limited form as the “revised structure” in the discussion,Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Space/Reorganisation, but no formal structure has since come about. Why are Mars and Moon their own wikiprojects when they are not well supported and they could be added as taskforces on the Solar System project along with Venus, Sun etc for example?

Any views on all of this? ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Space articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Space articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting updates on China space program
I might just be extraneous by posting on a topic I clearly have no expertise in, but anyway I was reading the news online and came across articles such as these: China to send man to moon by 2025 and China’s space programme gears up for missions to Moon, Mars. I suppose the fact that China wants to send astronauts, or taikonauts (aptly named), to the moon not too long from now is highly significant? I'm not sure if this has been covered in the relevant articles, as I was reading up on the China space program which made no such mention. Just poking my nose in, A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 08:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just realised its been mentioned — rather obscurely — in the article. These stuff certainly need to be made more salient since they're important info no? A NG C HENRUI Talk♨ 08:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to add more sourced information about it be bold. Though remember due weight, it is only an ambition with few detailed sources thus far. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Moons of Neptune
I nominated this article for Featured List status. The review page is here. Ruslik_ Zero 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

AFD of interest
Those so inclined should speak up at Articles for deletion/Namira Salim. The article claims that the subject, a Pakistani woman, flew to space in 2009 as a tourist on Virgin Galactic! The article's author keeps insisting that the referenced news articles from before 2009 prove that the events happened! Any comments would be appreciated. -MBK004 09:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

space suit discussion
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Space suit about whether or not this link to a NASA video about suit preparation is appropriate for the external links in Space suit. Some additional opinions would be appreciated.--RadioFan (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia version 8.0 problem
There are way too many Soyuz articles selected for Wikipedia version 8.0. In fact, 80 Soyuz articles are selected, even though all are classified are start (and in fact, most seem to look like stubs). This is a problem; it appears to be caused by the fact that they are all listed as TOP priority in three different wikiprojects (this one, WikiProject Human spaceflight, and WikiProject Russia), a move apparently made by a single editor.

So I think we should tell the Version 8.0 team not to include all 80 Soyuz articles; but which Soyuz articles should they include? Does anyone have an opinion on this? I think, for example, Soyuz 1 should be included. But most of these Soyuz articles don't deserve the Top priority rating, and hence shouldn't be included in Version 8.0. Comments would be appreciated, Mlm42 (talk) 08:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably mean version 0.8? Ruslik_ Zero 17:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Space elevator
Folks, can you bring Space elevator and its linked articles into the project? It seems to exist out there without coordination. I linked in its intro to non-rocket spacelaunch, but I think there is additional work that could be done to coordinate and improve. Tom Haws (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It already has a Wikiproject Space banner, and is therefore in the project. As a former featured article, it's already in pretty good shape. There were some issues raised in its review that I guess were never addressed, so it got demoted. Mlm42 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heliopause models after IBEX & Cassini
Greetings everyone! Need help, it seems results from IBEX and Cassini since 2009 have changed models of the heliosphere (for example). This featured image (and others) seem to be misleading people about the current state of science. Image and text across this and other wikis really need updating. Fotaun (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Future role of this project
During some discussions on several of the child project talk pages, the role of this project has been called into question. It appears the WP:SPACE is not currently doing anything, and that all work is being done by the lower projects, such as WP:ASTRO and WP:SPACEFLIGHT. Two remedies have been suggested for the situation so far:
 * 1) Centralising the entire project by upmerging all child projects to become task forces of one monolithic project with an organisational structure similar to WP:MILHIST, which is one of the most successful projects.
 * 2) Splitting the astronomy and spaceflight sides of the project, and abolishing WP:SPACE.

I feel that it would be a good idea to start a discussion here in order to try and establish a consensus on what action if any should be taken. Can anyone offer any input? -- G W … 21:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I support option 1. I think WP:Space could be as good (and maybe better) then WP:MillHist. So put one !Vote for option 1.-- Navy Blue84  21:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Option 1, for sure. Astro, Spaceflight and others can be Task Forces a la Milhist. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 22:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Option 2 definitely. Astronomy is a science wikiproject, WPSpace is nothing of the sort. If anything, Astronomy can be placed under WPPhysics better than under WPSpace. Whether or not WPSpace is abolished, I care not, but merging Astronomy tightly would be very bad. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that if MILHIST can combine histories of battles & wars, biographies of the people involved and articles about the machines used to carry them out, we can safely combine articles about stars, planets and the means of getting to them rather well. I'd suggest three task forces for WPSpace; Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight, each operating its own portal (with the abolishment of the Space portal). Colds7ream (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Under option 1, I would favour putting Solar System under Astronomical Objects, which could either be brought to the same level as astronomy and spaceflight, or kept under astronomy. Astronomy should keep constellations, some of the current third level projects and task forces could become working groups. -- G W  /P … 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could someone please explain to me the distinction between Astronomy and Astronomical objects, because they seem practically synonymous to me. I would have thought that having three taskforces, one for everything within the Solar System, one for everything beyond the Solar System and one for the methods of reaching said places would be the best option? Colds7ream (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what they're actually doing (I'm not very active on the WP:ASTRO side of the project), but I would have seen astronomy dealing more with the abstract concepts, observations and people, whilst AO deals with the objects themselves. I don't see the point in distinguishing between objects inside and outside the solar system. Objects in the solar system are still astronomical objects, and therefore it would make sense if the same project/task force dealt with them. -- G W  /P … 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable; my suggestion was merely to assist in dividing the labour, but if people are happy splitting it that way, that works for me. Colds7ream (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Astronomy is already well managed, there is no point in keeping it under WPSpace. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Astronomy is divided similarly to WPAviation, which has WPAircraft as a subproject, so Astronomy has Astronomical objects to deal with various celestial bodies and classes of celestial bodies; as WPAircraft deals with aircraft, aircraft models, aircraft classes, but not aerodynamics. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get some WP:Astronomy members involved here to see what they think? It seems to be a bit pretentious of us spaceflight folks to dictate what the astronomy editors should be doing. Can I also please just clarify that I haven't decided my position on this either way yet (i.e. option 1 or 2). Colds7ream (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I was hoping they'd have taken an interest by now. Do you have any objections to me starting an RFC and mass-messaging everyone involved? -- G W … 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If so can it emphasise the fact this is at a very preliminary stage? Although I did post messages on Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight linking to this page the present discussion has rubbed some editors up the wrong way, .  I don't think it helps suggesting that this is yet an "either or" between Option 1 and Option 2 or that this is a decision to made just by WP:Space. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of launching an RfC myself actually, GW, so feel free to go ahead as far as I'm concerned. I agree with ChiZeroOne though, we need to make sure everyone's on the same page with this to prevent any ugly business, as we really don't want any more of that having experienced it so recently. Colds7ream (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am fairly attentive to the goings on at WP:Astronomy, though I don't make edits constantly. I had no idea until this discussion started that WP:Astronomy was a part of WP:Space, mainly because there is not much on the project page that merits attention, so I only saw now there is a box on the WP:Astronomy page that has WP:Space as the heading. This is perhaps a long winded way of saying that from my perspective, WP:Space has not served any important purpose, and it does not seem that WP:Astronomy would lose anything by being separated from WP:Space. Everything that happens pretty much happens on the talk page for the project.


 * All of that said, if someone wants to start organizing concerted efforts project wide under the heading of Space, I might support some sort of variation of Option 1. I think I'd like to hear more concrete details than "make it like WP:MILHIST" though first. Otherwise, my preference would be to split WP:Astronomy from WP:Space. James McBride (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I support Option 2 at the moment. The Spaceflight and Astronomy sides appear de facto separate right now anyway. Of course, if there were interest from the Astronomy side to merge into a bigger project, I would support that; but I haven't really heard much interest in this direction. A related issue is whether it is beneficial to merge all (5?) of the Spaceflight WikiProjects into one, and rename the child projects as Task Forces. As the WikiProject Council points out, this is a way to reduce the bureacratic overhead associated with a WikiProject. Currently these wikiprojects are acting similarly to Task Forces anyway. So I would support the move to unify the Spaceflight WikiProjects, but to keep Astronomy separate. Mlm42 (talk) 04:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would point out we don't necessarily need to have like-for-like taskforces and the new Spaceflight project could easily create new ones like “NASA”, for example. We can also implement new ideas like some of those already hinted at from Milhist. But yes I suggest we have a poll of Spaceflight/daughter members about this once the issue of what will happen to Space has been sorted out. Wouldn’t be surprised if this goes the same way as the portal merge. ChiZeroOne (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not a member of this project, but I am a member of both Astronomy projects. I'd have to say I am strongly opposed to option 1. I believe you'll need the consensus of both those WikiProjects to pull it off, and that seems very unlikely.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation, I would suggest that we continue this discussion there so as to keep everything in the same place. -- G W … 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation of space WikiProjects
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. -- G W … 22:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Abolition of WikiProject Space
The RfC over the fate of WikiProject Space came to the consensus of abolishing the project, removing it as a parent to the projects below it, with not a single comment in favour of its retention. As a result this project will be wound-down allowing Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight to become the lead projects in their area as has been pretty much de facto the case for some time on the Astronomy side. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as citation, cite journal, cite web...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place id (or worse http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use 0123.4567, likewise for id and http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 &rarr; 0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):



Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot requests/Archive 41
I've made a request for a bot to try and guess bibcodes for the most popular astronomy journals / journals with the biggest presence in the ADSABS database. Feedback is welcome. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for assistance - Accumulating space device
Anyone interested in taking a look and cleaning up? Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics about astronomy and other space-related topics - Skysmith (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Grants:IEG/Wikipedia likes Galactic Exploration for Posterity 2015
Dear Fellow Wikipedians,

I JethroBT (WMF) suggested that I consult with fellow Wikipedians to get feedback and help to improve my idea about "As an unparalleled way to raise awareness of the Wikimedia projects, I propose to create a tremendous media opportunity presented by launching Wikipedia via space travel."

Please see the idea at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wikipedia_likes_Galactic_Exploration_for_Posterity_2015. Please post your suggestions on the talk page and please feel free to edit the idea and join the project.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I appreciate it.

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Space Propulsion Group has been nominated for discussion
Category:Space Propulsion Group, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)