Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Adopt an astronaut/Archive 1

Self assessment for C-class
I just wanted to verify before I did it several times (I can always revert) that I understand correctly I can self-assess articles for C-class. Some of these articles are very clearly there for everything except for citations, so after some minor citation cleanup they are C-class. Would rather assess it myself and not waste someone else's time. Let me know if I understand that correctly, thanks! Kees08 (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Page setup
Should I change the page setup to mirror Operation Majestic Titan? Or will I be the only one to use this page? I am fine if that is the case, just wondering if I should try to mimic that successful project. I could theoretically expand this to be Operation Majestic Titan for the Space Race, and include cosmonauts, vehicles, administrators, etc, and split it into different phases. Like OMT, the project would take decades to complete, but at least progress could be measured and tasks divided and conquered. Thoughts?  Kees08  (Talk)   20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be pretty impressed for you to take on that task, as I don't think that would be an easy undertaking. But I think having a little more direction and "leadership" for our project could help motivate people to contribute to certain articles.  Additionally, I think having a catchy name might convince people to check the project out if they see a userbox on our pages.  I've never redesigned a page (and my attempts at poster design for conferences in my research days indicate that my design skills leave something to be desired), but I would be happy to help. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I do not know anything about the topic of organization of articles. RobP (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the table I added to the Mercury Seven section? The goals can of course change, that is just what Hawkeye and I discussed in another section. The goal listed is the minimum needed for it to be a featured topic. I could do it for the rest of the astronaut groups listed as well. I like that it clearly defines working goals for each group. Ideally all would be featured, but our time and the reviewers time is of course limited.  Kees08  (Talk)   23:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good. I think it sets some realistic expectations (although from an outside perspective and having never brought an article to FA status, Grissom seems like it might be a challenge), and lays out a plan, vs. a general "improve the articles" goal. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Grissom will be a major challenge, I have three books for it already. If you ever want to swing by and improve it feel free. Let me know if you need anything with the Slayton article, I am a little lacking with sources for that one though.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll contribute what I can, but I think having an autobiography (or at least a good biopgraphy) is crucial to understanding the astronaut's life, not just his time in the space program, and is usually the only source for their early lives and more details about their military careers. I think that would be a problem with Grissom's article. Slayton's article isn't too bad (albeit I'm making slow progress on it); my issue is that his book has so much background on the space program and his other tangents that I need to dig through to find details about him. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I set minimum goals for the first three groups, what do you think? There are some I would like to be FA at some point (like Jim Lovell), but did not select yet. Since I am biased for Purdue (go Boilers!) I have all the Purdue astronauts set at FA (because regardless of this project, I intended to take them all to FA anyways, see my work on Grissom, Chaffee, Armstrong, and Cernan (I saw both Armstrong and Cernan in person!)). I also selected astronauts who died in the program, and the lead article of each topic. I also selected the Apollo 11 astronauts since we are doing them anyways, Conrad because he was hilarious, and Young because he was important. With all that said, I do not really care what the goals are, and I encourage you two to change them to whatever you feel is appropriate (and anyone else that is looking at this page). Again, these are minimum goals, we can take whichever articles to featured that we would like.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * While I think it's good to honor the astronauts who died in the program, I think it's an ambitious goal for many of them, especially the astronauts who died outside of Apollo 1. But best of luck!  I agree with the other FA goals, and think Lovell should be included as well. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 15 astronauts
Since you already have most the sources you would need to write the biographies for the Apollo 15 astronauts, I thought I would let you know of this effort. We have been trying to get Space Race astronauts up to GA level at least (well, B-class is the first goal). If you are interested in doing the biographies, it would help move this project forward. If you are interested in writing them, and need any sourcing help or writing help on any of it, please ping me and I will do whatever I can. If you do not want to write them, I understand. Thanks!  Kees08  (Talk)   22:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I probably will, but likely not all at once. Irwin will be a pain with all his religious stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Couldn't be worse than Cooper and his UFOs.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Mitchell and his ESP in flight? I'll start gathering up sources on Scott. I have the Kindle version of his memoir with Leonov. Then probably Worden, have his. Have both Irwin books in print. But grateful for whatever you can hand me that spares me the trouble of looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just came here to say I have barely touched Mitchell's article for that reason. That is why it is one of the only start class articles on the page. Someday... Also, I used to get the Kindle books but found it too hard to find information because I am used to flipping through books. Then I lose having a search function...wish I could get both when I buy one for a normal price.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Mercury Seven astronauts
Sounds good, I like to focus on one astronaut on a time as well. I plan on getting Grissom FAC-ready next.  Kees08  (Talk)   04:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have Cooper at FAC GA. Will do the Mercury Seven main article next.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Which articles should we make featured? Shepard and Glenn are currently, I am taking Grissom to Featured, so we would need one more for the featured topic. Probably the lead article, be it FL or FA, yeah?  Kees08  (Talk)   19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The main one. The reason I suggested making it an FL rather than an FA is so that its nomination would not clash with other nominations in the pipeline. Because Featured article candidates/Polaris (UK nuclear programme)/archive1 got canned, I have to wait until 1 February before I can nominate another article. I will co-nominate Buzz Aldrin at that time; it should be through A-class by then. (You still have Roger Chaffee at FAC.) Mike Collins will follow when it clears A-Class. If we need another Mercury astronaut, Carpenter could be brought to FAC.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I nominated Chaffee since, if I understand it right, we could each have one at FAC, and then co-nominate one together. Maybe I misunderstood the rules. I can always pull it if I need to as well. I am indifferent in general to FA vs FL.  Kees08  (Talk)   23:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have the rules right. I wanted to co-nom Buzz.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the Mercury Seven articles, what do you think of targeting Mercury Seven for GA, and Wally Schirra for FA?  Kees08  (Talk)   08:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think we'll have to. I'll nominate Mercury Seven for GA when it is released from FLC.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Expand to include all US astronaut classes
While this project as it stands has no shortage of tasks to do (including your suggested expansion to be more like OMT), thoughts on expanding it to include all US astronaut classes? It's unrealistic to think we'd improve all of the articles in the near future, but I think having all astronaut biographies fall under a sub-topic makes more sense than having all Space Race-related articles (including biographies) fall under a sub-topic. Let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I stopped because making all the topic boxes took a bit of time, and the astronaut classes got huge. I encourage you to do it if you find time, otherwise I may try at some point. I still would like to keep some sort of separation between eras so we can see progress (the progress bars I have at the top), though I do not feel strongly about it.  Kees08  (Talk)   04:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I wasn't sure if you were planning on keeping it Space Race-era or not.  You're right, the classes get much larger.  I'll take a crack at it when I find the time. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on cosmonauts? I was thinking of making another page, then adding a tab or obvious link to it.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea to create it, but I don't feel like there are nearly as many resources for the cosmonaut biographies, so I think many of those articles will go unimproved for a long time. Still, no harm in making a separate page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

XS-11
Shouldn't the XS-11 be listed as Shuttle astronauts like the MOL astronauts? None of them flew except on the Shuttle. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically it should. I was trying to find a natural breakpoint so the project could be split into digestible chunks, and tried to (and did not do a great job) of naming them appropriately.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The other natural breakpoint is to do it like Burgess, and to include the XS-11 and MOS astronauts with the Apollo astronauts on the basis that they were recruited in the Apollo era, and did serve on some support crews. In my mind, the TFNG selection in 1978 marked the start of the Shuttle era.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you mean MOL over MOS? That is actually how I had it originally, I do not remember my rationale for moving them down into the next section. So you suggest moving Group 7 back into the section with the first six groups?  Kees08  (Talk)   19:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, MOL. (typo there). I think they should be moved back.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Plan forward
Who is your next target to work on after Borman? Probably a good idea if we start on Lovell's article now, well before the Apollo 13 50th anniversary. I imagine it will have a pretty big spike in viewership.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I guess we should do Lovell next, as he is the next oldest living astronaut.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

International astronauts in the NASA class
Currently coming back to expanding this page to include all astronaut classes. Is there a precedent for including international astronauts that were part of the NASA class? My vote (and what I will proceed with doing unless told otherwise) is to include them, as they are still members of the class and served equally among their US counterparts. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Goal boxes for later classes

 * For the earlier classes, we have a "goal box" (for lack of a better word) that describes the state of the article and what the goal state is. For the classes with "less notable" (not that flying in space still isn't incredible) Space Shuttle-era astronauts, do we want to continue that trend, or simply use the infobox to list the astronauts in the class and the current article rating? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am indifferent; I probably will not work on them past the Apollo astronauts (I could probably spend the rest of my life expanding out all of those articles as it is). So whatever you prefer; I can help you set it up if you would like.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely know what you mean about spending the rest of your life on these articles. I also think that there have now been so many astronauts that it's unrealistic and arbitrary to determine which ones we should set a goal of FA/GA/B-class. I'll keep adding classes to the tracker itself, but will leave off the goal box. Thanks for your input; hope you're staying safe during COVID-19! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this an active working group or a working group proposal?
The author of the lead section (possibly ) says that their goal is "to create a task force to get [the notable astronauts] to at least B quality". This implies that it is a proposal for a working group. However, it seems like some editors are doing what the author is saying, something like an active working group. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)