Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Archive 8

Spaceflight Discord
Hello out there.

As a frequent user of Discord, and seeing it more inhabited and easier to use than IRC, I was interested in creating a channel on the Wikipedia Discord Server for WP Spaceflight.

If there be no objection, I can petition the admin to add it, and then we can have a place for real-time discussion, community building, etc.

What do you think?

--Neopeius (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me. I use IRC primarily but can use Discord too.  Kees08  (Talk)   02:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A project channel has been created as requested. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Where is the traditional place to put the invite on a Wikiproject page so all know of its existence? --Neopeius (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a short sentence under "Join us" -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Isn't "Discord" an unfortunate choice of name for a communication tool intended to foster collaboration? Who came up with that?
 * But seriously, not being a member of "the video gaming community", I'm not sure what the value added would be (what can we do there that we can't do here?), other than maybe moving some of the potential Wikidrama offline? JustinTime55 (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunate name aside, Discord has nothing to do with videogames. It's just a chat application, like IRC except we're actually thete using it. The benefits of real-time coordination and interaction are substantial. Come give it a try! :) Neopeius (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Collins
The effort to get all the Apollo 11 articles ready for the 50th anniversary in July comes down to the last article - Michael Collins (astronaut). Mike orbited the Moon while Neil and Buzz walked on it. A previous effort to get it through FAC failed for lack of reviews. If you could drop in to Featured article candidates/Michael Collins (astronaut)/archive2 and contribute a few comments, this would be much appreciated. You don't have to review the whole article. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Rocket article
The Rocket article is our only B-class Top-importance article right now, and a cursory look suggests to me that it might have a chance at getting GA-class with a bit of work in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the moon landing (getting it to FA-class in that time might be a bit of a moon-shot). Looking through it, I can see the following sections as having the clearest need for work on them: Does anyone fancy picking this up? — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * §Hobby, sport, and entertainment - tagged for expansion
 * §Safety, reliability and accidents - tagged for expansion
 * §2010s emerging private competition - not tagged for expansion, but currently just a single sentence. There's a hatnote to the relevant section in Space launch market competition, but I think there's scope for a couple more sentences (especially following some of the more recent developments from SpaceX).
 * I can pick up engines, propellant, military, and rescue. Notably, there is no section on guidance or structures. Small sections on those would be required for GA I think, and could be expanded for FA later. There are many unsupported statements throughout the article, but if the work is split up that can be resolved. Any particular sections you would like to work on?  Kees08  (Talk)   16:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much specialism I can provide, so I was looking more to copy-edit the article as a whole. I can begin building a to-do list on the article talk page, and we'll take it from there. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Saturn I
My script says it's B class (the one that displays class at top of article) but the Talk page says "C" for missing supporting materials.

It seems well supported with pictures. I'm for making it B. Any objections? (and am I allowed to speak for WP: Rocketry, too?)

--Neopeius (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me, but I'd recommend just running through the B-class checklist on the page to make sure that the other items still meet B-class (as the rating was done in 2011). The "citations needed" tag can also be removed if it meets B-class. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 12:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The issue I see is that it's done completely without in-line citations, so I've no easy way to check the accuracy of any one statement. :( --Neopeius (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , then, in my view, it is definitely not B class. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

[YEAR] in Spaceflight pages
Hello!

I notice that our [YEAR] in Spaceflight pages become very sketchy starting with 1966_in_spaceflight. Is there a team currently working on them? Do you have a procedure for adding flights?

Thank you!

--Neopeius (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: The last time 1966 was updated was in 2012! I just added March. --Neopeius (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Many years ago, a very active editor named GWSimulations or something like that (name later officially changed to User:WDGraham, with Talk page signing moniker "GW") was prolific in writing scripts and tools and whatnot to help him automate such things, to improve Wikipedia coverage of spaceflight and spaceflight technology.


 * Sadly, some other editors were a bit abusive (in my view) and he got tired of fighting it; he unfortunately retired from Wikipedia in early 2015. I suspect I may still have some of his old tools linked on my user page.  Of course, no maintenance on any of those tools for years, and I doubt anyone ever picked any of those up.  But if one were to poke around you could find find them.  He might have some tools, or lists, to help organize or accomplish such tasks.


 * If you search the archives, you'll find tons of his involvement in improving spaceflight related articles. N2e (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Moon
An editor seeks guidance on where to put this interesting topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Your guidance looks great to me! --Neopeius (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A subject I'd like to know more about. Have never thought that NASA had them leave their waste on the Moon. NASA has shown concern for not wanting to contaminate another astronomical body, well, except for this (unless it was packed really well with no chance of subsequent lunar contamination, which seems a stretch). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SOLRAD 1
Hello out there!

Could some of you good folk give my article a looksee? It's been stalled in FAC forever despite four supports and a neutral, and I think it's been polished as far as it can go. Finishing the review will not only get another much-needed FA for this wikiproject, but I can then carry the lessons learned from that one to the others in the series. GRAB/SOLRAD 1-4B has the makings of a Good Topic.

So please help. Give SOLRAD 1 a look-see and leave your decision on the archive page.

Thanks in advance!

--Neopeius (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Advanced Photovoltaic Experiment page does not refer to the correct APEX
The page whose title is "Advanced Photovoltaic Experiment" refers to a satellite whose name is "Advanced Photovoltaic and Electronics Experiments". The satellite is known as APEX, which is also the name of a different experiment whose name is actually "Advanced Photovoltaic Experiment". I know that this is the most minor thing in the world, but what's the procedure for changing the title of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstachowsky (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed  Kees08  (Talk)   00:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN/C entry for the Beresheet space probe moon landing
See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Beresheet_space_probe_lands_on_Moon. Closed now.

Related articles: Beresheet, Israel Aerospace Industries, SpaceIL, List of spacecraft on the Moon. Ahiijny (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunate end to the mission. Ahiijny (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh, crap. That sucks.  --Neopeius (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Huh, looks like it got a front page blurb anyway! Cool. Here's to hoping that the next attempt succeeds. Ahiijny (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Human spaceflight for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Human spaceflight is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human spaceflight until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 03:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Update Request for Air Force Space Command article
Hi again! I'm with United Launch Alliance's communications team, and I'm seeking help to update the Air Force Space Command article's "Launch Service Agreements" section, which does not currently say which companies were awarded contracts. I proposed a specific update at Talk:Air_Force_Space_Command, but so far no one has responded. I've received responses when posting here before, so I'm hoping WikiProject Spaceflight editors might be able to help once again. Thanks. ULA christa (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Christa. If you can provide a link to articles in the media which contain this information (not press releases), that's something that could be done. :)  Are you unable to add the information yourself? --Neopeius (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Technically, Christa could edit the article herself, but she is making a very ethical decision not to do so. She is an employee of a company involved and one working for their communications team. Editors really aren't supposed to edit articles when they have a professional or personal conflict of interest. So she doesn't edit the articles herself, but asks other people to do so. I really appreciate that. In any case, I agree about wanting a more independent reference than a press release, but I'm also concerned than many media reports are uncritical repetitions of the information in a press release. Ars Technica might have something, and their likely author does add content and commentary to the press release information. Fcrary (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Sfera (geodesy satellite)
Hello !

I created a new article, Draft:Sfera (geodesy satellite), about soviet geodetic satellites, but although it is a stub, it was moved to draftspace because it has not enough sources. IMHO, a stub featuring as external links articles from reference web sites and with 6 interlanguage links is admissible. I think WikiProject Spaceflight can evaluate this article, or even improve it (references...). Best regards. Thanks in advance! Artvill (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization
Our Low Earth orbit article is capitalized as such, but then in the first sentence is capitalized Low Earth Orbit. Is the right way in a sentence to say low Earth orbit, or Low Earth Orbit? I have seen both ways in literature and am not sure which is preferred, or if we have a preference.  Kees08  (Talk)   23:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it as a proper noun, in the vein of place names like Upper Canada or North Ameriaca; though some of the words are common nouns, the combination of them in a particular context makes it a proper noun so all are capitalized. I could be wrong though.--Cincotta1 (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Full capitals and the acronym LEO are the most common usage. Personally I prefer mixed caps for the region (as you would use for northern America as opposed to North America), but that's just me. We should stick with the common usage and ignore my personal preferences.Fcrary (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:European Space Agency for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:European Space Agency is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:European Space Agency until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to remove articles from the list of stubs?
Whenever I get time, I choose a random article on the "stubs" list and try to add as much information as I can. Am I allowed to then remove it from the stubs list, or does it go through a formal review? If so, how do I initiate that review for each article?


 * No formal review is required up through C Class. You are encouraged to fix up our stubs!  If and when you want a B-class or higher review, please list it on the Assessments page, and one of us will be happy to help. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

RfD discussion on one of the USAF military satellites designated "USA-nn""
An RfD has been opened on the article USA-99, which per it's current redirect, should link to USA-99 but the main REDIR is broken. USA-99 should merely be a redirect to the Milstar family of satellites where the USA-99 designator is noted as the official USAF designated name, and the very few details the Air Force lets out is annotated. The spaceflight Wikiproject has long had a list of all USA satellites: List of USA satellites.

But the RfD has left some people confused thinking it is about a US highway 99 or a USA 1999 sports event. Would be super helpful to have some spaceflight-knowledgeable editors weigh in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * THIS DISCUSSION REALLY NEEDS ONE OR TWO spaceflight-knowledgeable editors to weigh in. Please take a look there if you have three minutes to spare.  Cheers.   N2e (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

50th anniversary of Apollo 11
The 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 is coming up, and a couple of editors have been working in WP:S2019 (and elsewhere) to try to create a spaceflight themed main page for the occasion. We have the featured article ready, featured picture, and a few DYKs. However, we were hoping to have the DYK queue filled with space-themed articles (preferably 'firsts'), and we are running a bit short on time. Ideally, Yuri Gagarin, Valentina Tereshkova, and Félicette. I believe is going to finish Luna 2 or at least get it closer. I have an offline source I can use to finish up Félicette. If anyone interested in Soviet spaceflight could spend any time at Gagarin and Tereshkova's articles, it would be greatly appreciated. Any time is helpful, ideally we get them to GA and nominate for DYK but all constructive edits help achieve that goal.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight
An RfC you may be interested in has been started, please provide commentary.  Kees08  (Talk)   05:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Schiaparelli EDM lander -> Requested move 9 May 2019
Here's another spaceflight project that has a name change request/discussion (proposed by another user). OkayKenji (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Peer review - feedback requested
Hi. I'm hoping to get List of unmanned NASA missions promoted to a featured list, and have filed it for peer review. Any feedback would be welcome. Please see the discussion at Peer review/List of unmanned NASA missions/archive1. Thanks so much, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it too early to have a "List of Starship launches" article?
There have been, to date, just two short engine tests of the new Starship (rocket) prototype that SpaceX is building in South Texas. Both of those tests are fully covered in the Starship article, in the Testing section.

An editor has recently created a new and quite large article List of Starship launches which is a large and redundant copy of material from other Wikipedia articles: largely Starship (rocket), BFR (rocket), and ITS launch vehicle.

Would really appreciate a few other spaceflight project editors looking in on the discussion on the Talk page about what should be done about this, and offering views as to what, if anything, should be done about this. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As per the discussion on the article's talk page, I have nominated the article for deletion at: Articles for deletion/List of Starship launches. - Jadebenn (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Starship launches for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Starship launches is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Starship launches until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Jadebenn (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Space Shuttle main engine -> Requested move 31 May 2019
I've made a move request on the article's talk page. Frankly, I think this is long overdue. Even the article body lists the RS-25 designation first and the old SSME designation second. It may have made sense back when the Space Shuttle was the rocket engine's only user, but with the SLS planning to use it too, that logic isn't justifiable any more. - Jadebenn (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yamal (satellite constellation) - Yamal-601
Hello !

In the article Yamal (satellite constellation), there are 2 satellites Yamal-601, one with a russian bus (Ekspress-2000) and another with a Spacebus-4000C4 bus, launched (2019-05-30). The Yamal-601/Ekspress-2000 is probably a mistake, cf the reference https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/yamal-601-2.htm that displays "ERRATUM" now, in 2019. Do you have others references ? A cancelled contract ISS Reshetnev ? A procedure with Thales and ISS Reshetnev ? Best regards. Thanks in advance! Artvill (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Apollo 11 anniversary and the Main Page
Please comment on the discussion at WT:TFA about the Main Page for 50th anniversary of Apollo 11. --- Coffee  and crumbs  03:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Featured List Candidate
Feedback at is welcome. DannyS712 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The articles "Big Joe 1" and and "Big Joe (Project Mercury)" are about the same thing and should be merged into one
I do not know how to do the above mentioned thing. Could someone do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.42 (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss over at Talk:Big Joe (Project Mercury) Talk:Big Joe 1 OkayKenG (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Input requested
Input regarding Apollo 11 ground crew details is requested at Talk:Apollo 11. Thanks. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 21:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Reviving the astronomy newsletter
I was interested in restarting the Astronomy newsletter over on the Astronomy talk page, and was wondering if people on this project would (tentatively) be interested in reading it. I am going to make it tree of life style, and include FAs, GAs, and DYKs from both this and the Astronomy wikiprojects. Thoughts? Starsandwhales (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what such a thing entails but I would probably read it. :) --Neopeius (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It would be something like this link and it would basically go over the big things that have happened in the project in the last month. It will get sent to people's talk pages either every month or every few months, and the first one will probably get sent at the end of July :) Starsandwhales (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14
Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:
 * A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
 * We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:
 * Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
 * WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Article for Deletion
An article you may be interested in, Apollo 13 Mission Operations Team, has been nominated for deletion.  Kees08  (Talk)   23:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Telescope primary size in meters, feet and inches or inches
Please see the new section in the James Webb Space Telescope talk page. It looks like there is some inconsistency in units among articles describing telescopes. We've got a mix of meters (fine with me), decimal feet, feet and inches (both seem odd to me) and inches (traditional astronomy convention.) Fcrary (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

New Apollo images available
In recognition of the Apollo 11 anniversary, the US National Archives has been uploading our collection of historical NASA images to Wikimedia Commons. There are over 750,000 images in the NASA collection, so this is a long-term project. However I would like to draw your attention to the 8,000 uploads (and counting) from the series "Photographs of the Apollo Space Program". Please feel peruse the category for many photographs that could help articles related to the Apollo missions. In particular, you can use the "incategory" search trick to find specifically Apollo 11-related images in that category (1400+). Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Dominic·t 19:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is great news, thank you for the notification. I will try to categorize them as I find time.  Kees08  (Talk)   21:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * They are about 20 megapixels, but most are less than 2MB in size, and don't look very good - as if reduced to a low-quality JPEG. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * And also the JPEGs are about the same size, even if the image is all black. This also indicates that the conversion to JPEG wasn't done correctly. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for checking them out. I definitely recognize that the quality varies widely with NARA's digitized records. Many of these could have been scanned 15 years ago or more, and that accounts for the different standards—unfortunately, some of the most high-interest images were scanned the earliest, and now haven't aged as well. I think they typically work fine in the context of a Wikipedia article illustration, but feel free to exercise your own editorial judgment, of course. Note, it's not all of the NASA images that are this size; for example, check out "Photographs Relating to Agency Activities, Facilities and Personnel", where most scans are over 20 MB.
 * While we don't the resources to completely rescan digitized images from every few years—as there are still billions(!) of records not yet scanned at all—if there are any individual images you come across that you think are highly significant, I can look into getting a new version digitized. Dominic·t 12:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course, we appreciate having these. I've looked at the Apollo 4, 6, and 7 photos - the color is way off on most of them.  Were they scanned from old prints or the original negatives/transparencies?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't tell for sure from the catalog record. The description of this example lists the type of film it was taken on, but the format of the archived copy is listed as "Magnetic Disk". It is possible that this was digitized by the agency for their own use before it was transferred to the National Archives in electronic format. I am not sure how else the archives would not have copies of the original film. In other descriptions, you can see that typically the existence of a negative or print (or both) would be noted. We would have to ask the archival custodial unit to be sure. Dominic·t 19:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, I think it would be a good start to get an ID number to request a higher resolution scan if necessary (as you said). Do you know if this collection will have any underrepresented Apollo-era astronauts? I have been writing about the Fallen Astronauts, and images for individuals such as Elliot See and Roger Chaffee are practically non-existent. No worries if you are not sure; I tried to do a search and did not come up with anything.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * A lot of the ones of the Moon have been scanned at about 2500x2500 and some at about 4000x4000. But those 2500x2500 ones look a lot better than these 4000+ ones - at least the Apollo 4, 6, and 7 ones I've looked at.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Just for comparison, I did a quick color correction in Photoshop on AS04-01-399 and uploaded the result, , where you can compare the before and after. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Some Luna 3 images on Commons are up for deletion

 * 
 * 
 * Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Need a page number from Aldrin & McConnell (1989), Men From Earth
I am working on the A-class MILHIST review for Yuri Gagarin and need a page number from. Does anyone have a copy? Please ping me. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request for 2019 documentary Searching for Skylab
There is a deletion request project members may or may not have interest in for the documentary Searching for Skylab. Deletion request and discussion here. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Wrapper template
Does Wikipedia still have a Wrapper template for imminent launches? I thought it used to be but it does not work. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as a comment, the template has been moved to User:JFG/sandbox/Launching. The reason for the move was a deletion discussion here. Some of the comments suggest using the template  instead. As I'm not sure what a "wrapper template" is, I'm not sure if this answers your question. (also the wrapper itself was deleted as it was a subpage of the template, so I don't know of a wrapper that would replace the deleted one). Although, my guess is that your already know this.  OkayKenji (talk page) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalization wars lead to inconsistency; style definition required
Once upon a time, we used the traditional practice (per NASA and all public media reporting) of capitalizing the Apollo Command and Service Module and the Apollo Lunar Module. Then in the past year, a new generation of Wikipedia style cops decided this was "undue weight" and we must create our own style (maybe or not based on what NASA has maybe or not decided is their current style) that says they must be in lower case. But then someone decided it's really important for the lunar module's official name to be capitalized, and so we currently have Apollo command and service module and Apollo Lunar Module. (The inconsistent usage in the Apollo 10 lead image caption brought this to my attention.)

So the argument has been that we must use our own style with lower case, but since we aren't being consistent, we in fact do not have our own style. They need to be consistent by nature, because they are not simply two independent, unrelated craft, but were designed to be flown together. Can we get this resolved? This is aggravating that we have to waste attention and effort on trivia like this, rather than substantively improving the accuracy and coverage of the encyclopedia content (while editors such as User:Wehwalt, User:Kees08, and User:Hawkeye7 are making valiant efforts to get as many Apollo articles as close to Featured quality as possible in time for Apollo 11's 50th anniversary on July 19, 2019). This cannot help but contribute to Wikipedia's public image as a joke rather than a reliable reference work. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a need for an answer. I really don't care much what it is, so long as there is one. I'd like it to be as simple as possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Plan to add more later, but pointing out this discussion for a talking point.  Kees08  (Talk)   20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a similar debate about Space Shuttle Main Engine back in 2014 that was brought to my attention during my work moving said article to RS-25. The discussion ended with the article being moved to Space Shuttle main engine. Interestingly, of all the various language wikipedias, the only one to have "main engine" non-capitalized was ours, the English Wikipedia. I firmly believe that move was a mistake, and that Space Shuttle Main Engine was a proper noun and should have never been changed, but that does appear to be the point of contention with these various move requests. If "Apollo Command Module" is a proper noun and title, then the editors invoking WP:MOSCAPS are unambigously wrong. If it is not a proper noun, then they are unambiguously right.
 * I would concur with JustinTime55 in that this issue needs to be settled once and for all. Otherwise it'll continue to flare up every few years and wreck any attempts at article title consistency. - Jadebenn (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add that I find the arguments given in the linked move request (concerning the Apollo command and service modules) unconvincing. One of the arguments given in support of the move was that terms such as "command module" and "service module" were used by NASA uncapitalized. I don't find that convincing evidence that those words cannot be used as proper nouns.
 * Let me use an example: The term "high school" is a common noun, and is therefore uncapitalized. Yet the term "John F. Kennedy High School" is a proper noun, and is therefore capitalized. One refers to a type of school, the other refers to a specific example of that type of school. Similarly, "service module" is a common noun, and is uncapitalized, but "Apollo Service Module" is a proper noun, and should therefore be capitalized. One refers to a type of spacecraft part, the other refers to a specific example of that type of spacecraft part. - Jadebenn (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors (for reference). I think there are so many individual cases it would be really hard for us to gain consensus. Not sure the best way to tackle this, I am trying to think of a way to divide and conquer the problem. Take for example the titles of command module pilot and lunar module pilot. I have been changing articles such that when it is used in a title, it is capitalized, when it is not used in a title, it is not capitalized (besides start of sentence etc). I believe this match both NASA's style guide ("Capitalize titles, not job descriptions, as long as they refer to a specific person (e.g., William Barry, NASA Chief Historian; the Galileo Program Manager, the NEAR Mission Director; but the program managers; astronaut, mission specialist, pilot). Also capitalize Principal Investigator.") and Wikipedia MOS ("Titles should be capitalized when attached to an individual's name, or where the position/office is a globally unique title that is the subject itself, and the term is the actual title or conventional translation thereof (not a description or rewording)." I have been reverted however, with the logic that they are not titles. Has there been an RfC for this yet to reference? I think perhaps a well-publicized RfC on the MOS page would be the best way to end the edit wars. I am with Wehwalt when they say one answer is all we want, whatever that happens to be. If I am overruled on the job titles for example, so be it, at least I can make the articles consistent.

For things like Space Shuttle Main Engine....I think that is an example of overcapitalization. I see it like Descent propulsion system, which uses lunar module descent engine. If we decided to capitalize lunar module, I think Lunar Module descent engine would be the proper term. I think the section on Apollo 9 on the life support system backpack is another example of overcapitalization. I left it as I found it, but liquid cooling garment, oxygen purge systems...just because a phrase makes up an acronym does not mean all the words need capitalized (pressure control valve even!). NASA's style guide has these examples: Space Shuttle main engine, solid rocket boosters

For the Command and Service Module and the Lunar Module, in the case of Apollo, since that was the name of the vehicle it should be capitalized, according to NASA's style guide and intuition. Space Shuttle is capitalized for example.

Okay now that I have rambled that long, perhaps creating an RfC where we request to follow NASA's capitalization style guide, and list out relevant examples (Lunar Module descent engine, Space Shuttle main engine, lunar module pilot (...Lunar Module pilot..?), Lunar Module Pilot Aldrin, oxygen purge system, etc) is a good idea. It is about the only way I can see gaining project wide consensus, I can gain local consensus on articles (and often do through reviews), but it goes to shit after the review and does not affect other articles. Thoughts?  Kees08  (Talk)   03:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm actually quite surprised at the fact that the stylesheet you linked supports the "Space Shuttle main engine" capitalization. I may need to reconsider my opinion on that particular issue. Still, where's the dividing line? I'm only half-joking when I say that at this rate someone's going to request changing International Space Station to International space station. - Jadebenn (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on the above?  Kees08  (Talk)   17:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * According to the MOS:CAPS, "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."


 * —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's really not helpful when the capitalization debate centers over whether a term is or isn't a proper noun, such as has been the case with Lunar Roving Vehicle, Apollo Command and Service Module, and Space Shuttle main engine. There needs to be some way to decide this before we have people trying to rename the ISS page to "International space station" because they think "International Space Station" is a violation of WP:MOSCAPS. - Jadebenn (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * NASA uses "International Space Station", not "International space station". Reliable source: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html


 * —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 09:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it quite helpful. The style manual says, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." To me, since I believe the vast majority of sources use capitalized 'Space Shuttle Main Engine", we should follow the sources' practice. It's also used in an acronym, SSME, all over the place. That sounds like "Main Engine" is part of proper name, not just a description of its function.


 * Oh, and just to make it fun, what about the instruments on the Hubble Space Telescope?


 * Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)
 * Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS)
 * Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR)
 * Faint Object Camera (FOC)
 * Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS)
 * Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS)
 * Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS)
 * High Speed Photometer (HSP)
 * Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS)
 * Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS)
 * Wide Field and Planetary Camera (WFPC)
 * Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2)
 * Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3)
 * That's the capitalization used in all the published literature I've ever seen. Fcrary (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * To use the SSME example, I was on the side of the "Main Engine" capitalizers, because I believed that "Main Engine" was part of the title, i.e. it was a proper noun. The NASA style guide linked earlier on in this discussion casts doubt on that claim, though. Thankfully, it's a moot point for anything but that particular article's lead now, since I went through the process of getting it moved to RS-25. It is still an issue for the Apollo Command and Service Module article, where I believe the most recent move to Apollo command and service module was unnecessary and incorrect. - Jadebenn (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal of an article
Should I have an article about Apollo 11 50th Anniversary?

—Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 13:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say it would make more sense to expand the section we already have in the Apollo 11 article. I'm not sure how long people will remember the 50th anniversary events. That's sort of my criteria for being a sufficiently noteworthy event. But it looks like someone has single-handedly created an article on the 50th anniversary coins, so what do I know? Fcrary (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I created Apollo 11 anniversaries, so you can expand that if you like. I was planning on it (made it awhile ago) and have not made the time to do it yet.  Kees08  (Talk)   21:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Spaceplanes
I just moved the HOTOL article to British Aerospace HOTOL per aircraft guidelines before I remembered the spacecraft convention. But is a spaceplane an aircraft or a spacecraft? So I opened a discussion about the titles of spaceplane articles here, to which contributions are welcome. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Maiden flight vs. first flight
User:5Ept5xW (Contributions) started a crusade against the use of "maiden flight" in basically every spaceflight article, replacing them by "first flight". "Maiden flight" is generally used everywhere, so I don't think these changes are useful. Other thoughts? --mfb (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not know, I generally use "first flight". —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 09:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * First flight is better for Wikipedia. -- Spacepine (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * also 5E, I removed a bunch of 'manned's from the FA astronaut bios, but I suspect there's a bunch left on other ones. Didn't have the stamina to go through them all. If you do it'd be greatly appreciated. -- Spacepine (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Manned" is the correct term. It means at least one human, by definition.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, NASA disagrees and wikipedia (largely) disagrees. See the recent RfC for a more nuanced discussion. --Spacepine (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Why should we use "first flight" over "maiden flight"? (edit: i.e. why is maiden flight NOT "gender neutral") OkayKenji (talk page) 17:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The historical and current common term is maiden flight. I see no reason to change it. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * History isn't exactly a good reference when it comes to gender neutrality. 5Ept5xW (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 5E, read that again: The historical and current common term is maiden flight. On the second issue, I am all for gender-neutral terms (manned → crewed). CheersRowan Forest (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * History isn't a bad reference either. And don't give me that nonsense about languages evolving. If they do, fine, and we should follow that. But deliberately trying to change a language for political purposes is Orwellian by definition. Fcrary (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unfortunately the way wikipedia works is we copy/adapt established guidelines from external sources instead of creating our own. It's meant to stop extremists from pushing minority points of views, to make sure the world if fairly represented, and to make sure the language is familiar to readers. If you want to change peoples minds you need to show that external reliable sources (like ESA, NASA or majour newspapers) favour "first flight" over "maiden flight" or that they use both roughly equally (which gives room for interpretation through Wikipedia's gender neutrality guidelines). That's what happened recently with the 'manned' vs 'crewed' discussion. --Spacepine (talk) 23:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you could reasonably say "maiden" is a gendered noun. But that isn't an inherent problem. On the subject of gender neutral language, the Wikipedia Manual of Style, for example, says, "Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable..." The Wikipedia article on Gender neutrality defines it as avoiding "distinguishing roles according to people's sex or gender, in order to avoid discrimination arising from the impression that there are social roles for which one gender is more suited than another." That does not sound like the removal of all gendered nouns, especially when they do not actually refer to a person. If it is acceptable to call a ship "she", then it's acceptable to refer to "her" "maiden" voyage. In addition, the MOS section on gender neutrality ends by saying, "As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so." I haven't heard a substantial reason to eliminate the use of "maiden" flights. Fcrary (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can say that it is a noun because in "maiden voyage" it is used as an adjective. I looked it up in the Oxford American Dictionary (others should do so to, instead of making assumptions) and it doesn't always mean something female, for instance "maiden voyage" and the first time a horse runs in a race, it is a maiden - male or female.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You've got me. In this case, it's a gendered adjective, not a gendered noun. Fcrary (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, "maiden voyage" is not female. Look it up in a dictionary. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, dictionaries are well known for their nuance and complete coverage of a topic. Unrelated... what's an encyclapedia for again? --Spacepine (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a fair interpretation of guidelines - I don't disagree with your logic. Personally though, given the recent RfC on 'crewed' vs 'manned' in spaceflight, and the overal move away from gendered descriptions, I think it's more appropriate for an encyclopedia to use the neutral word. --Spacepine (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see a significant difference. In the case of "crewed" versus "manned", we're talking about people and occupations. The gendered term carries the implication that a particular gender is not suited for that occupation. But when we're talking about objects or events, that's a different matter. Nor do I see an "overall" move away from gendered descriptions. There is one when it's about people and groups of people. But objects? Adjectives with some association with gender which can be applied to inanimate objects? I know some people would like that, but I don't see any general, overall trend in usage. (And, by the way, I wish someone could come up with a gender-neural term other than "crewed" which pronounced in the same way as "crude.") Fcrary (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, the case for 'manned' vs 'crewed' is more stark. However, I think that the historical choice by largely all male crews to describe a ship as female is not a coincidence. Whether it's meant lovingly, as an expression of frustration, or just as a sign of familiarity it personifies the ship as a particular gender and shapes the way we think (a relevant article ). People don't like the weird association between an inanimate object and a woman, and their preferance is to use 'it' instead (as recommended by 'Chigago Manual of Style). Personally, I would use 'she' and 'it' 50/50 in general conversation, 'she' if I was trying to speak romanticly and flowery, and 'it' in an encyclopedic context. (I can't substantiate "overall". I personally see a trend away from gendered words in my life, but that's not indicitive, or relevant for a discussion on a scope limited molehill) --Spacepine (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sidenote, there've been a few studies on gendered nouns changing human perception of objects, . Feminism aside, isn't it better to be as neutral as possible in an encyclopedia? --Spacepine (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess my problem is with "some" people and a "few" studies. How many people? And, as a scientist, I know how much junk ends up in the literature. (Ok, the paper about discovering bacteria on Jupiter's moon, Europa, was satire. But it was also got through peer review and was published in a respectable journal.) With "manned", I don't think it's a gendered term, since I believe in homonyms and that a word can be non-gendered while its homonym is. But my opinion is irrelevant, since it's obvious that a large number of people have that impression, correct or not, and that has clear, negative consequences. With something like "maiden" flight or calling a ship "she", I don't know how many people object. Is is one in ten or one in a million? I also don't know what the harmful implications are. Even the study you mention just says "changing perceptions" not tangible harm. If the standard is "some" people and the result is minor, I don't think that's enough. If we adopt that threshold, I don't think it would make sense to only apply it to gender-related language; it would have to be anything "some" people objected to. By the time we're done, that standard would prohibit anyone writing anything. Personally, I'm offended by the recent term "citizen scientist" for amateur scientists. As a professional scientist and a citizen of the United States, I find that term disenfranchising. But that's my problem, and I don't try to dictate how other people speak or write. At some level, I just expect people to deal with things they object to. Fcrary (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there's a huge difference between best practice and being prohibited from writing anything. But I definitely concede your point that this really doesn't matter much. It seems the real discussion is over the extent of "substantial reason", so I'll accept whatever side of consensus I fall on there. In the mean time I'll use 'first flight' in my own writing but not go out of my way to change the existing style. --Spacepine (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the actual Wikipedia article on the subject is maiden flight, with a redirect from "first flight". So that makes "maiden flight" the term accepted by Wikipedia. If User:5Ept5xW doesn't like that, 5Ept5xW will have to go through the motions of changing the maiden flight article's name. Fcrary (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, how? 5Ept5xW (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nvm, I figured it out. 5Ept5xW (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, moving a page without discussion is grotesquely inappropriate. Now I have to figure out how to undo it. Fcrary (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, you just told me to move the article, so clearly there has been a discussion. I really wish that you guys with decades of Wikipedia experience would take it easier on new users like me - clearly I am trying to improve the content here. 5Ept5xW (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No one said "just move the article". If moving an article can be controversial (and based on the discussion here it clearly is) you need to find a consensus for this move first. See Requested_moves. --mfb (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when I wrote "go through the motions of changing" the article's name, I meant starting a discussion on the relevant talk and project pages, convincing people the change is appropriate, and building a consensus. Unless the change is fairly obvious and trivial, that's how things are supposed to work. Otherwise, we get edit wars where one person makes a major change, someone else reverts it, then the first editor reverts the reversion, etc. In this case, it isn't clear if you are improving the content. You are altering it to make it match your preferences. That's not the same as an obvious improvement.Fcrary (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Maiden voyage" is also correct. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Girls too ;) Apologies, the mountains of prereading and tendancy to get irritated with newbies or the ignorant is a well known failing of this site. --Spacepine (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion of this on the maiden flight article talk page, and someone has started a section on moving the article from "maiden" to "first". It isn't a formal request for move (the person who opened the section wrote something about being unfamiliar with the process.) If anyone's interested, now's the time to comment. The result could affect all the spaceflight articles we've been discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Blue Origin Blue Moon -> Requested move 11 May 2019
Hi! Started a discussion on Talk:Blue Origin Blue Moon on the naming of the article. The article is under the Spaceflight Project and talks about Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander. In case anyone is interested can they check it out if they want to. OkayKenji (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Gender neutral language renaming discussion
Hi all — I have proposed renaming the category Category:Manned missions to the Moon to Category:Crewed missions to the moon. You are welcome to comment on the proposal at its listing here. - Sdkb (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on this list there are also Category:Manned space observatories, Category:Manned space program of Russia and Category:Manned space program of the Soviet Union. And Category:Manned submersibles but that is not space related. --mfb (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I nominated the rest for renaming. --mfb (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What do we do with Iranian manned spaceship project? Is that a proper name? If not: Was this designed to be a men-only project? That is the last "manned" in an article name that is not used in its historic context, by the way - Wikipedia-wide. --mfb (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Need Navbar and Category for CLPS
The Commercial Lunar Payload Services has begun to award contracts for payloads and landers (studies). These will support the lunar Artemis program but are in a robotic category of its own. Can someone please create the "Category: Commercial Lunar Payload Services" and a Navbar for Commercial Lunar Payload Services? I would if I knew how to. If you just create the barebones of the Navbar, I can expand it. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I created the category. Right now the only article in it is the main one. Are there any other articles you want added to it? Also, I have never done a navbox before. I will do some reading up this evening and start it this evening if no one else beats me to it.--Cincotta1 (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I started a draft of the navbox at User:Cincotta1/sandbox/Commercial Lunar Payload Services template. Let me know if this is what you had in mind and if there is any other categorization or links you would like. I guess I'll migrate it to template space after I hear from you.--Cincotta1 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have subcategorized the Category:Commercial Lunar Payload Services. Now, I am learning the navbox system in my sub-page. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata 14:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been moving apartments the past two weeks and have been without internet service. Is the navbox up and running, or is there anything else I can do?--Cincotta1 (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of the new category. Putting articles like Lockheed Martin in would suggest the company exists as part of this program. Articles should only be put in if this program is the main or a major part of the article topic. "Has some relation to" is not an inclusion reason. --mfb (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC on changing "maiden flight" to "first flight" across Wikipedia
Please note there is a WP:RFC underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation about whether to change all instances of "maiden flight" in articles, portals, templates and categories, in reference to spaceflight and aviation, in Wikipedia's voice, to "first flight". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIYeditor (talk • contribs)


 * We have reached the conseus that the instances of "first flight" in articles, portals, templates and categories, in reference to spaceflight and aviation, in Wikipedia's voice, to "maiden flight". So the RfC would be closed. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata $T/S$ 17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI: The RfC is not closed - and imho it's leaning towards no consensus --Spacepine (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Quick counting: 25 "oppose", 10 "support". Caveat: Some of these explicitly mention ships and aircraft but not rockets. What is clear: There is no consensus for a general change. @Soumyabrata: No one discussed (or supported) a change in the other direction. Make a separate RFC if you want that (prediction: it will be opposed massively). --mfb (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Separate list of Ariane 5 flights?
Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Ariane 5. — JFG talk 18:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC on changing "first flight" to "maiden flight"
Should all instances of "first flight" in articles, portals, templates and categories, in reference to spaceflight and aviation, in Wikipedia's voice, except where "maiden flight" is being given as an alternate term to "first flight" (e.g. "A 'first flight', also known as a 'maiden flight', is...), be changed to "maiden flight"? —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 13:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Are NASA Distinguished Service Medal recipients notable?
I recently created Willis Shapley and as part of that, updated his listings in NASA Distinguished Service Medal to wikilink to the new article. In so doing, I saw that there are an awful lot of red links in there. I was thinking of writing a few articles; they may not be much more than stubs, for the most part, but it would be a start.

Is being a recipient of this medal sufficient to establish notability? I don't want to undertake a project of creating articles if they're destined to be deleted at AFD. TJRC (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. If they have significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG then obviously an article would be fine, but getting the award does not grant automatic notability. You could potentially split the list out into List of NASA Distinguished Service Medal recipients and only include individuals with articles (I wish we could include something like 'notable' or 'included in Wikipedia' in the title, but that's not how it works here). There is a different NASA awards article that is a lot more blatant at listing off non-notable individuals; at some point it was cleaned up but then reverted. I will look for it later if I find time.  Kees08  (Talk)   17:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Listing people with insufficient notability for their own article is perfectly fine. The list is about the award, not the people. If there is no expectation that they could get an article in the future then leave the name without link. --mfb (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh maybe, NASA Exceptional Engineering Achievement Medal is the article I was thinking about. I added the 2015 class, someone changed the article to just be notable recipients, but that was reverted. There is probably a cutoff somewhere for notability for inclusion, I might seek out the policy later. I recall when I went through the article I mentioned a lot of the blue links were to the wrong pages (not that that is a reason to remove all the links).  Kees08  (Talk)   23:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks; this will save me from the wasted effort. TJRC (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

JAXA's Tsubame satellite (Japan)
If this sat is a test using novel VLEO-altitude propulsion systems, then we should find more about it, and have it covered in Wikipedia. (I do not know by what means this sat is surviving so long and well at such very low altitude orbits.)


 * "On Jul 20 JAXA's Tsubame satellite, designed to operate at low orbital altitudes, descended to a 218 x 221 km orbit"   [ link ]

Does anyone have info on this? Or read Japanese and could do a bit of reaserch to find out? Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I can find some english language sources that might be of use:
 * Primary sources from japan, Jaxa and METI have english language discussion
 * The usual suspects, Gunter and SF101, both have articles
 * I found a pre-print type article (not sure if it was sent to a journal or used as a conference paper) from Tokyo Institute of Technology
 * I also found a paper published in Physica E
 * I guess it would be nice if somebody could translate the sources used at the Japanese wikipedia (jp:TSUBAME (人工衛星)) but there might be enough here to support an article without it. Adendum: It looks like I conflated two different sats, SLATS another name used for the low altitude one. I'll update my links where I can, strike through those that are only about the wrong one. --Cincotta1 (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Editor can offer an insight on what is going on. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The concept behind Tsubame (SLATS) is to use an ion engine to counter the atmospheric drag present at VLEO. According to JAXA, an ion engine is ideal for Tsubame because while it has low thrust, ion engines have a good fuel efficiency, and can be used for a long length of time. After launch, Tsubame completed its initial phase in March 2018 and entered its 'orbit transition phase'. From 2 April 2019, Tsubame began its 'orbit keeping phase', whereupon its ion engine will be fired to keep the altitude stable. Initially, altitude will kept at 271.5, 250, 240, 230 and 220km. Tsubame will retain its orbit at each of these five altitudes for a duration of time. In its final phase, the satellite will be lowered to an orbit with an altitude of 180km. At this height, atmospheric drag is expected to be fairly strong, so along with the ion engine, the spacecraft's gas thrusters will also be used for altitude keeping. This image shows the orbit control methods Tsubame will use at each altitude. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I found an introductory paper published by the satellite manufacturer titled 超低高度を利用する観測衛星"つばめ" (The observation satellite using super low altitude "Tsubame"). Below is a raw translation of Section 3.7 軌道保持制御(orbit retention control) and 3.8 運用(operation):

3.7 Orbit Retention Control An image of the orbit retention control is given in Image5. For SLATS, operation to control the altitude will be attempted between orbit altitude 180~ 268km. Between orbit altitude 220~268km, ion engine is enough to cancel atmospheric drag and keep the altitude. During the time Earth observation is not performed, ion engine will be fired to retain the altitude. Meanwhile, when the altitude is lowered to 180km, atmospheric drag increases further, and retaining altitude only by firing the ion engine is difficult. Therefore, a hybrid control will be performed, in which ion engine will be used to mitigate drops in orbit altitude, while chemical thruster will be fired to raise the altitude when it(Tsubame) descends below the predetermined altitude retention area. 3.8 Operation SLATS will be launched together with a piggyback satellite (Shikisai : GCOM-C), so initially it will go up to Shikisai’s operational orbit, approximately 800km. After separating Shikisai, the H-2A second stage will be fired again to lower the altitude to 643×450km (apogee 643km, perigee 450km) where it(Tsubame) will be separated. From there, first chemical propulsion system will be used to lower the altitude to around 400km, and after that, we plan an operation in which it will be lowered to its mission operation orbit at 270km by using atmospheric drag.(Image 6) Since a passive orbit control using aerodynamic resistance to lower the orbit will be taken, attitude control will be performed to increase or decrease aerodynamic resistance, as shown in Image7.
 * Image 5 (The one labeled '図 5') on the fourth page depicts how Tsubame keeps its orbit, the zigzag line indicates the altitude of the satellite. Image 7 shows the satellite's various attitude modes: (a) is 'Observation mode', (b) is 'Aero-thru mode', (c) is 'aerobrake mode'. Notice that in (b) the solar panels are positioned horizontally to the direction of flight to minimize drag, while in (c) the solar panels are kept in a perpendicular position to maximize drag. Hope this helps. Hms1103 (talk)


 * This is GREAT! Thanks for all the assistance in figuring this out Cincotta1, Rowan Forest, Hms1103.  We should get all this excellent descriptive information into an article on Tsubame! N2e (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Even better! I just realized that there is NOW a redirect for Tsubame (satellite) that was helpfully created in the past few hours by User:Yiosie2356. It redirects to Super Low Altitude Test Satellite. I would say that is now the place to further improve the article describing this novel satellite testing novel VLEO orbital maneuvering and countering of atmospheric drag. Please do add the descriptive text and citations from the above. N2e (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It looks like Tsubame will orbit even lower than the famous GOCE "Ferrari" satellite. Yes, it merits its own article. Thank you, Hms1103. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It has its own article (since 2015). Super Low Altitude Test Satellite --mfb (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Chinese satellite internet constellation(s?)
Looking for more info on the Chinese satellite internet constellation program. I have very little info on this.

I found out about it yesterday, mentioned in a comment to this 2-yr old source that is used in one of our Wikipedia articles, and referred to as "CASIC Hongyun." "'There's also at least one internet constellation plan outside FCC jurisdiction; CASIC's Hongyun. It's supposed to use 156 sats at 1,000km altitude, and a tech demo sat for it was launched a couple days back. Full constellation would start deployment in 2019 and be finished by 2021.' (obviously, not useful as a valid Wikipedia source)"

Today, I found we have one article that refers to prototype sats launched in 2018 as two different things: one row in a table is "CASIC Hongyun" and also, a second row/launch?, "CASC Hongyan", with a different source for each. Not sure if the spelling differences are correct, or possibly an error in translation.

Does anyone here read Chinese? know how we might learn more about these Chinese internet sat constellations? Heck, I can't even tell the difference between CASIC and CASC. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Google Translate can help. I often use this to read foreign pages. I also find the differences between CASIC and CASC:
 * CASIC = China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation Limited
 * CASC = China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation
 * —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 06:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That's, indeed, two completely different constellation plans that happens to have similar pronouncing names in Mandarin, but the names in fact have completely unrelated meanings (Hongyan means wild geese while Hongyun means rainbow clouds).


 * As far as I know there are only vague info scattered around various Chinese sources (they are already more than private (?) Chinese companies with similar plans, as these two are the largest state owned corporations related to spaceflight in China), and English ones are close to non-exist. I may be able to help, but be warned that the bits available might not be enough to make articles here anything more than a stub article. (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Super, Galactic Penguin SST. Glad to see you respond, since I recall you read Chinese.  Yeah, I get that we might only be able to obtain stub articles on whatever Chinese internet constellations might be coming, but really do think that they deserve that level of coverage as (based on past experience and the unique Chinese "internet" philosophy, they are highly likely to do something separate from the more global constellations, and the Wikipedia "encyclopedia of all human knowledge" ought to try to represent their existence.  I'll certainly try to help with stub articles on these two.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Spacecraft flying in VLEO, or have previously done so?
Does anyone know of spacecraft currently in stable VLEO orbits? (very low-Earth orbit) Or spacecraft that previously flew and were designed for stability in such low VLEO orbits?

I think it is great that the spaceflight Wikiproject has identified Tsubame (satellite) (see previous Talk page section) as one of these. But are there others?

Some of the new satellite internet constellations intend to have a large number of sats in VLEO, so making our Wikipedia coverage of this (new / newish) design orbital regime in the encyclopedia would be a very good thing, in my view. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * See GOCE. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Good find, Rowan Forest. I have created a new cat:  Category:Spacecraft in very low-Earth orbit, and added both GOCE and Tsubame to it.  N2e (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't SpaceX supposed to be about to deploy a fleet of Internet satellites in VLEO? Rowan Forest (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Several thousand in ~340 km height, see Starlink article. SpaceX calls it VLEO. --mfb (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia article on the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule explosion earlier this year???
I see in the Crew Dragon Demo-1 article this very brief mention of the subsequent explosion and test of that capsule in (uncrewed) ground testing: "On April 20, 2019, the capsule used on Crew Demo-1 was unexpectedly destroyed during a test of the SuperDraco engines at Landing Zone 1.[10]"

I looked for an article on the very notable and much covered explosion, months-long follow-on investigation, and analysis. I was really surprised not to find anything in Wikipedia covering this major/notable event and followup. Would expect to perhaps see an article, or a major section of an article, explicating the event and follow-up.

Looked here in category Category:Dragon (spacecraft). Nothing looks close. Am I just missing something that does exist?

I know we have many supporters and fans of the innovation and technological progress SpaceX has made in spaceflight over the past decade+, but it seems a rather odd lacuna, and possibly an (unintentional and emergent) instance of POV, as it is hard to imagine an event of this magnitude by, say, ESA, ISRO or NASA not being covered in Wikipedia. Just really really odd. N2e (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can expand on the section Dragon 2 in the Dragon 2 article? But agreed the coverage on Wikipedia seems lesser then usual. OkayKenji (talk page) 12:56, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, the investigation is not done yet...per teslarati, the investigation results, the one release publicly by SpaceX is still "preliminary" . But more recently the investingation is almost done, but is not done. . OkayKenji (talk page) 13:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are 2 approaches: Sensationalism or informational. If we don't know yet the details of the investigation, the context and implications, then don't. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * SpaceX did release what occurred (see https://www.spacex.com/news/2019/07/15/update-flight-abort-static-fire-anomaly-investigation). They just did not finish the report yet. In my opinion the best approach might be to just wait until SpaceX finalizes their investigation. We already mention the explosion occurred (in the section mentioned above), and do sort of explain the preliminary investigation, but in terms of adding a lot of details, we might want to wait till the finial investigation is publicly released. But at the same time it might still be informational to include the preliminary results? What do others (and you) think (including substantial information from the preliminary investigation)? OkayKenji (talk page) 17:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think that this event needs its own article and is just fine being covered in a section of Dragon 2. That section can be expanded a bit when the final report is available. On the whole, Wikipedia has an issue with enormous over-coverage of SpaceX, which manifests both in the recording of every detail of every press release and in a profusion of articles that could easily be subsections (partly because all the press release minutiae don't fit in subsections). The fact that this event has been relatively under-covered reflects an NPOV issue, but we should welcome it as an example of the proper level of coverage. The way forward is to trim down the mass of press release info elsewhere into this sort of summary style, not to inflate coverage of this event in order to achieve balance. A2soup (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is why tests are performed with plenty of safety. Even after the report is released, I don't think a special WP article is justified. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The other Tsubame satellite
Earlier on this discussion page, asked for information on a satellite called Tsubame that would fly in a VELO orbit. I helped look for sources, but had found a lot of sources for another satellite of the same name. Since then, I have written a draft about this other Tsubame in my sandbox, here, and think that it is ready to move to the article namespace.

I am unsure how I should disambiguate the new article. Should I move it to Tsubame (satellite), which is currently a redirect to Super Low Altitude Test Satellite, or should I use a more specific term in the parenthetical (e.g. gamma ray observatory)? --Cincotta1 (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Great new article. I think it is ready to go to the article mainspace, which I noted in a review comment I just left on the draft.
 * Regarding the name. I'm a bit fuzzy on the two different Tsubame sats. Could you summarize the two briefly here?  dates, masses, sat bus, mission timeframe, objectives, etc.  I think it'd be easier to provide feedback on the disambig question then.  Cheers.   N2e (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this helps, but at the Japanese Wikipedia we differentiated the two Tsubame by naming the page for the TITECH satellite TSUBAME, in upper case, and the JAXA satellite つばめ, which is simply Tsubame written in Japanese. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The two Tsubame are the draft I created and the one mentioned in a discussion above, which has its own article Super Low Altitude Test Satellite.


 * The draft Tsubame was launched first, in November 2014. It is a small satellite, weighing about 50 kg on a 45cm x 45cm x 56cm bus. It was developed by graduate students at the Tokyo Institute of Technology (with contributions from another team at the Tokyo University of Science). The mission had both engineering and scientific objectives. Engineering objectives included the demonstration of compact control moment gyros for quick attitude control and demonstration of a new high resolution optical camera for earth observation. The main scientific objective was to use x-ray polarimetry to observe gamma-ray bursts. The expected service life was one year, however during the check-in phase of the mission, several communication issues were observed. The UHF transmitter continued broadcasting until about three months later when all contact with the satellite was lost.


 * The other Tsubame is also known as the Super Low Altitude Test Satellite (SLATS). It appears most sources prefer to call it SLATS, primary sources from japan usually use both names (i.e. Super Low Altitude Test Satellite "Tsubame"), the NSSDCA catalog notes that it was supposed to be renamed Tsubame after deployment. It was Launched in December 2017. It is a much larger satellite (though still small), weighing about 400kg. The bus is 2.5m x 5.2m x 0.9m. It was built by MELCO and funded by JAXA. It contains a payload of earth observation instruments, including two optical sensors and a suite atmospheric monitors. It is also going to demonstrate maintaining a very low orbit (eventually dropping to 180 km), using a xenon ion engine to counteract atmospheric drag. It has a service life of two years, with the opportunity for an extended mission later. I could not find much on its current status, the latest I could find was June 2018 where it began transferring to a lower orbit. JAXA still has it listed as a current mission though.--Cincotta1 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I moved the article to TSUBAME (satellite), which hopefully doesn't break everything, I will be working to add it to the Tsubame disambiguation page and possibly repoint the Tsubame (satellite) redirect shortly. Thanks for your help Hms1103 and N2e--Cincotta1 (talk)


 * There's a JAXA page that posts images taken by SLATS / Tsubame. The most recent one is dated 9 August 2019 (The second from left, labeled '2019年8月9日撮像' below it). As long as this page gets updated, the sat's presumably functioning. Ragards, Hms1103 (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX Starhopper 200 meter hop- suborbital?
Hi! can we add the upcoming (August 26) SpaceX' Starhopper's 200 meter hop to Suborbital section? Does it qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlan 77 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Not 100% sure but looking at Timeline of spaceflight it says "For the purpose of these lists, a spaceflight is defined as any flight that crosses the Kármán line, the officially recognised edge of space, which is 100 kilometres (62 miles) above mean sea level (AMSL). The timeline contains all flights which have crossed the edge of space, were intended to do so but failed, or are planned in the near future." and since Starhopper is less then 100 KM, no? However it can be added to Starship (rocket and spacecraft). OkayKenji (talk page) 08:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Three thoughts:
 * It definitely wouldn't qualify as a "spaceflight", nor is SpaceX intending for it to be a spaceflight. It is merely the next flight test that SpaceX wants to do, and is "permitted" to do from the US gvmt regulatory authority (FAA OST), that will expand the Flight envelope as SpaceX iteratively and incrementally flies this first test vehicle, Starhopper.
 * It will be the last flight for this particular test article. SpaceX is continuing to test on the larger so-called "orbital prototype" vehicles, of which there are two.  Neither one is yet ready for their first test flight.  Starhopper's flying days are (per SpaceX) over today, whether or not this test flight is a 100% success.
 * The flight will only be to 150 metres altitude, as that is all the FAA permit is permitted for.
 * But sure, this test flight can definitely go in the table of test flights once we have a source for it being completed. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair use of Venera program images
Discuss at Media copyright questions. A2soup (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

List of BFR flights
I have made an article about the list of BFR flights, where all the flights of the Starhopper and the future flights of the Starship are enlisted. Pinging for assistance. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That's an instant move to List of Starship flights. The graph showing a static fire test in the same way as to a flight to Mars need some more thought. --mfb (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But...at Articles for deletion/List of Starship launches, consensus was to delete "this" article, but as 5 months has passed, perhaps this is diffrent and since this is called “flights”. OkayKenji (talk page) 16:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I would support deletion/redirection at this time for the same reason expressed at that AfD. A launch manifest for a rocket that does not yet exist is very WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you want to document the testing, then use Starship (rocket and spacecraft). IMO this should be userfied so it can be deployed to mainspace when the launcher is operational (or imminently so). A2soup (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've started a fuller discussion about this on the Talk page of the article. I, too, think that it is premature to have this article cause the two-stage-to-orbit stack of two vehicles, one Super Heavy plus one Starship—has had no flights to date, and none are planned for many many months. The already well-sourced List of test flights of the prototypes in the Starship article is sufficient.

Please join the discussion over there, on Talk:List of BFR flights. What's next? A move? An AfD? Keep a "List of ..." article for a launch vehicle that is not yet flying? or what? N2e (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * List of Artemis missions - not unheard of. Artemis has a clear preliminary flight schedule, however. We could rename the article to List of Starship flights, then the Starhopper flights can be mentioned (as relevant prototype) and we'll have the first real flight soon. --mfb (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15
Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Module?
"Module" in "Command module" and "Service module" are not capitalized but it is in "Lunar Module". Is there a policy about this? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not know. I think that the proper nouns should always be capitalized, but there was a dispute for that. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any policy or guideline that specifically applies. But the general policy is to mirror the usage by the organization responsible and the usage by the media. What sort of capitalization did NASA and the press use? Fcrary (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the RfC they are looking for?  Kees08  (Talk)   21:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At Talk:Apollo command and service module. The Apollo Lunar Module is actually the name of a spacecraft (some call it the first true spacecraft). So even though a bit on the clunky side, it's still the name of the spaceship which the astronauts piloted to the Moon, and named spacecraft are capitalized (as it is on NASA's anniversary pages). Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Italicization of New Glenn
Unlike other rocketry articles, New Glenn is italicized. Please join this discussion for consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Seeking feedback for a draft
Hello there,

I am a new user here and I am trying to get a Wiki page up for my company (I have declared a COI).

In the context of the current commercial space exploration emergence, the service I work for - ICE Cubes Service - allows any entity to run experiments on the ISS or in space.

Here is the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ICE_Cubes_Service I'd be really glad if someone could let me know whether my draft is neutral enough and/or if further work on it is necessary.

Cheers!

FKE94 (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on renaming/merging several SpaceX articles re BFR, Starship/Super Heavy, Starship
There is a discussion going on at the BFR talk page about renaming/merging several of the articles related to BFR (rocket), SpaceX Starship, and ITS launch vehicle. The naming situation is complicated by the rather loose way SpaceX has of naming things in the first place and then changing the descriptors over time. If any Spaceflight wikiproject editors want to weigh in and add your perspective, please read over the discussion and add your perspective here in prose and in the summary table. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI: The proposal is not "complex" and it is a single merge under a new name. The effectual merge process taking place at Talk:ITS launch vehicle,  Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well then, complex may just be a word that is subjective, and not something all editors would agree on. Fine.  Will just leave the facts here.  There is a major discussion going on in multiple sections (at least a half dozen; all started after 29 Sep 2009, five days ago) of the Talk:BFR_(rocket) talk page.  The simpler part I referred to above is a table Rowan had built to begin to assess consensus, so I thought it simpler to just link to that.  But I'd invite all Wikiproject Spaceflight interested editors to just peruse the BFR talk page and decide for yourself what level of complexity or simplicity you see.  And add your thoughts if your have any you'd care to share.


 * Also, as of 1113 UTC on 4 Oct, that "single merge under a new name," that Rowan mentions in his comment above, did not exist. That new merge discussion proposal was started at 1419 UTC on 4 Oct.  So it obviously is not something I could have known about as I invited interested WP Spaceflight editors to look in.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You originally wrote "complicated by" not "complex." I don't think the proposed changes (if we could agree on exactly which permutation to make) are complex or difficult to implement. But the fact that SpaceX and Mr. Musk are incapable of sticking to one name or the same terminology does complicate deciding which permutation of the suggested changes makes sense. Fcrary (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "That new merge discussion was started at 1419 UTC on 4 Oct." Bullshit. That single merger was the clear outcome and consensus of the long discussion. But following your Wiki-lawyering at the end' claiming that the whole thing was "invalid", the formal merger template  had to be made. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Editors, if you are not involved in that discussion, please review that. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexei Leonov
It looks like Alexei Leonov has died. Sad news, a very happy personality (met him soon after his 1975 flight). Maybe editors can take a quick look at his page to see if tweaks or additions can be added as readers come to the page upon this news. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added the Recent death disclaimer template, which is removed for good. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New SpaceX renders on Flickr
If anyone knows how to check for proper licenses, and then import to Wikimedia images from Flickr, SpaceX may have just released a bunch of new ones we might use to illustrate various articles.


 * Twitter post: "A few hours ago @SpaceX posted on their Flickr account 4K resolution versions of the previously released renders with the new design of #Starship.," was posted yesterday.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Finally! I was waiting for SpaceX to release the renders. I believe that all the photos on SpaceX's Flickr is able to be used on Wikipedia. It should be posted here ? Asked a question over at Help desk OkayKenji (talk page) 19:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Uploaded to Flikr is half the battle, but still they have to have these appropriate licenses: WP:Upload/Flickr. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * They are all CC BY-NC 2.0, so we cannot upload to Commons. Unless someone finds one that isn't NC :).   Kees08  (Talk)   21:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I found on Flickr that all images of the stainless-steel Starship are NC. This is weird. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes all (including Falcon 9/Heavy photos) of SpaceX's photos on Flickr are now NC OkayKenji (talk page) 02:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I imagine that the SpaceX images of the maiden flight of Starship would be copyrighted. I am digging further on the SpaceX images for now. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

What is Orbit spectrum?
I found this puzzling article and I'm having a hard time figuring out what it's even about. My suspicion is it's obfuscated spam of some kind, but I can't tell for sure. Can anyone make sense of it? If not, I'll eventually AfD it as incomprehensible and useless. Cheers, Reyk YO! 08:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's a real thing, and the topic is notable. See for a better explanation.   Hawkeye7   (discuss)  09:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so why isn't that linked in the article? JustinTime55 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So it's about which frequency bands are available to which satellites, to avoid interference? That is not clear at all from the article. Would it be worth blowing it up and starting over? Reyk YO! 10:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. It looks like it was written by someone whose first language is not English, and has very poor writing skills.JustinTime55 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 13 peer review
The Apollo 13 article is open for peer review in anticipation of the 50th anniversary, any additional eyes on it would be much appreciated. Thank you.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Launches request for United Launch Alliance
Hi again! I'm with United Launch Alliance's communications team, and I'm seeking help to update ULA's Wikipedia article. I posted a request at Talk:United_Launch_Alliance, which refers to a launches table I've drafted at User:ULA christa/Launches. Currently, the ULA article only mentions 6 of ULA's 130+ launches, and while there are lists of launches for specific systems, there's not one specific to ULA. So far only one editor has replied, and WikiProject Spaceflight has proved to be helpful for getting feedback in the past, so I'm hoping editors here might be able to assist once again. Thank you. ULA christa (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are very strongly discouraged from editing ULA article directly. You may propose changes by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 02:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this newbie misspoke; that COI noticeboard is for more serious matters. Just please propose your changes at Talk:United Launch Alliance. Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ULA Christa has always followed the recommended WP protocols. Her approach is absolutely correct. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Me three. I normally wouldn't bother to say that, but I really do like ULA Christa's approach. It mirrors my own unofficial response to a Europa Clipper instrument PI I caught editing the article on his own instrument. Since he's a friend, I just asked him to suggest changes to someone who wasn't directly involved and let them make the edits. And, while I have some stylistic differences with the latest change ULA Christa suggested, there's nothing wrong with her making a suggestion. If you want to go after real conflicts of interest, try NanoSat MO Framework (a article about a flight software development tool written by the development tool's author) or about acceleration processed in the aurora (where a retired scientist, using a pseudonym to cite his own work, keeps anyone from pointing out that the vast majority of scientists in the field think he's dead wrong; he claims he's so obviously right that even mentioning differing opinions would mislead readers.) Fcrary (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback and kind words. I'm glad to know editors appreciate how I'm submitting requests to improve articles. Over at Talk:United_Launch_Alliance, User:Fcrary, User:Rowan Forest, and User:OkayKenji advised against creating a separate list of launches specific to ULA, but all supported the idea of adding a launch service provider column to existing tables. I think this is a great idea, but I cannot update the pages myself because of my conflict of interest. Are any editors here willing to make these updates on my behalf? Hoping some WikiProject Spaceflight members may be interested in making these improvements. Thanks! ULA christa (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any non-ULA launches of the ULA rockets since ULA has been created? If not that column would be largely redundant in these lists. --mfb (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Starship development history
I have created a draft on the Starship development history. Feel free to contribute on the draft. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I could quibble about a few things. I'm not sure about saying "development of the Starship began in 2016." I think that's when it was announced and called "Starship." But things could have been going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. But, overall, I'd say we need to get the set of articles on Starship fixed up, and this is a good start. I'd rather see it pushed out now and let people edit it later, rather than leave it as an unpublished draft. Fcrary (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

COSPAR in infoboxes
Sometimes we create a link to NSSDC (Apollo 8, Apollo 13), sometimes we do not (Apollo 9, Apollo 10, Apollo 11). It would be nice if we could be consistent. I prefer not linking inline and instead adding a reference to NSSDC or another website (if it is not referenced later in the prose). Thoughts on this?  Kees08  (Talk)   15:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I created a reference for them and unlinked them in the infobox when the situation occurs? For consistency across the project.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Help needed
There is a requested move at Talk:Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor that would benefit from your input. Please come and help!  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 11:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification of merge discussion
A proposal to merge List of surface features of Mars imaged by Spirit and List of surface features of Mars imaged by Opportunity can be found here. Feel free to share your thoughts on the matter! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 05:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Issues with Mobile Launcher Platform
First, the article name is odd. I've seen them officially called Mobile Launchers and Mobile Launch Platforms, but never the combination of the two.

Second, the article is essentially describing two very different types of launch platforms.

A Mobile Launcher (as used by the Saturn V and SLS rockets) includes all the neccessary ground support equipment for the rocket, with the pad merely serving to supply resources to the rocket and functioning as a place to launch from. A single pad can service multiple types of rockets as long as they have compatible Mobile Launchers.

A Mobile Launch Platform (as used by the Space Shuttle) serves only as a platform to assemble, move, and support the rocket. Seperate equipment installed on the launchpad itself is necessary.

I propose splitting the current article into two: A Mobile Launcher article for the Apollo and SLS structures, and a Mobile Launch Platform article for the STS configuration.

The Mobile Launcher article would have two sections. One would cover the original three constructed during the Apollo program (and include a link to the second article covering their modification into MLPs for the Shuttle), and the other would cover the the two SLS will be using.

The Mobile Launch Platform article would include a link to article covering their pre-conversion use as the 3 Apollo MLs, and describe their configuration during the STS program.

What do you all think? - Jadebenn (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I see the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure how we'd link up two different articles. Most readers probably wouldn't know about the distinction and the terminology. What would redirect to "Mobile Launcher" and what would redirect to "Mobile Launch Platform"? Fcrary (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That is the issue. I would say that articles referring to the Apollo ML configuration or the SLS MLs should link to the "Mobile Launcher" article, whereas the articles referring to their Shuttle MLP configuration should link to the "Mobile Launch Platform" article. Alternatively, the article could be split between the 3 structures originally built during Apollo and used for Shuttle and the 2 structures SLS will use, but I personally feel that would be the more confusing option.


 * I think the main reason a split is in order is because of the new SLS mobile launchers. When it was only the three Apollo-era structures, there was a stronger reason to have a single article for both, since both terms were ultimately referring to the same physical objects, just in different configurations. However, with one new SLS mobile launcher built and a second one procured, both terms no longer refer to the same set of physical objects. Thus it's probably best to split them based on configuration since the Apollo MLs and the SLS MLs are extremely similar in design and function.


 * I've been working on a draft of what a seperate Mobile Launcher article could look like. You can take a look if that might clarify what I have in mind. It's still a WIP, but the fundamentals are there. - Jadebenn (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've created a move request to resolve the incorrect naming of the "Mobile Launcher Platform" articles. - Jadebenn (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and it was withdrawn. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus - there is no consensus for the proposed moves. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

– Current article titles are very un-concise. This represents a marginal improvement. - Jadebenn (talk) 04:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 1 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 1
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 2 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 2
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 3 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 3
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 4 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 4
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 5 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 5
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 6 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 6
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 9 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 9
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 11 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 11
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 12 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 12
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 13 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 13
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 14 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 14
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 15 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 15
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 16 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 16
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 17 → Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 17
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 18 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 18
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 19 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 19
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 20 → Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 20
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 21 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 21
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 22 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 22
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 25 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 25
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 26 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 26
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 29 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 29
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 30 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 30
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 31 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 31
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 32 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 32
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 34 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 34
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 37 → Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 37
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 40 → Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 40
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 41 → Cape Canaveral Space Launch Complex 41
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 43 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 43
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 45 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 45
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 47 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 47
 * Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 36 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 36
 * Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 46 → Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 46
 * Update: I have added Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 36 and 46 based on PhilipTerryGraham's recommendations. - Jadebenn (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Article titles: Avoid ambiguous abbreviations. AFS is a disambiguation page and does not even mention "Air Force Station". --Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any ideas for an alternative? I'm not really fond of "AFS" either, but the current names of these articles are ridiculously long and I couldn't come up with a better idea. - Jadebenn (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to change your vote now that "AFS" has been removed from the proposal? - Jadebenn (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Gonnym. Mere title length is not a reason to move pages. We aren't moving Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis because it's long. In the absence of another reason, it shouldn't be moved. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that mere length isn't enough, but do you not believe there is a more concise title for these articles? We don't title an article "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts" when "Massachusetts" works just fine.
 * Would you consider "Cape Canaveral Launch Complex X" an acceptable alternative to the naming scheme I initially proposed? It's even more concise while still being descriptive. - Jadebenn (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaning "no" due to WP:CONSISTENT guidelines. It makes sense that the individual launch complexes would be consistent to the main article, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Right now I'm not seeing a more concise title alternative.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, you may have a point. There is Taiyuan Launch Complex 1 where the main article is Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center. But I'm not really sure if that is following the guidelines or not.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutral on current proposal.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have altered the move request to no longer include "AFS" in the proposed new titles. - Jadebenn (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support with minor reservation: very confusing is the discernment between a "launch complex" and a "space launch complex". It appears that the word "space" should either be included in all the titles or omitted from all the titles. I would favor omission. Other than that, I support the more concise titles.  P. I. Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there 13:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the usage is inconsistently applied by Cape Canaveral, but it's an official part of the launch complex name. Several were renamed to "Space Launch Complex X" in the 90s. - Jadebenn (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't see how this change is useful. At most, I would see those targets simply being redirects to the current titles. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It would be wise to keep "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station" as a sufficient identifier of where the launch sites are located. "Cape Canaveral" is the name of the area upon which the base is located, after all, and Spaceport Florida and its launch sites are also located on Cape Canaveral. I will however support this proposal if we decide to identify all launch sites on Cape Canaveral as "Cape Canaveral", and not just those on the air force base, per consistent article titles. This would then include the following two moves:
 * Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 36 &rarr; Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 36
 * Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 46 &rarr; Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 46
 * – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 04:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So if I understand you correctly, you propose to categorize the launch complexes by physical location rather than by operating organization. The only issue I have with your idea is that Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 would be inconsistent with it. - Jadebenn (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kennedy is not on Cape Canaveral, so it is not relevant. To make it crystal clear – I'm not saying all launch sites should be titled by geographic location, I'm simply saying that the only way for the "Cape Canaveral Launch Complex x" title format to make sense is that all of the geographic Cape Canaveral's launch sites are titled that way, instead of just the launch sites of Cape Canaveral Air Force Base. That way there would be no confusion regarding Spaceport Florida's launch sites, which are on the geographic Cape Canaveral. Otherwise I'm opposed to the original proposal for this reason. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 10:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I'd be fine with your proposed change, then. Issue is that I'm not sure if it'd be okay for me to edit the original proposal when it has this many replies. I'm relatively new to the move process and don't know if that'd be seen as "pulling out the rug" from all the people who have already left their thoughts. - Jadebenn (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought about it a bit, and I don't see any reason the addition of those pages would cause any additional controversy or change anyone's votes besides yours, so I have BOLDly made the edit. - Jadebenn (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I now support the current proposal. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 05:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support because the abbreviation is unambiguous, per the WP:COMMONNAME policy. A majority of people mistakenly call "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station" as "Cape Canaveral". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that the proposal has been modified twice since it was started, leaving this open a bit longer to allow users to evaluate if they support of oppose the current version. Pinging users that have participated (sorry if you !voted since it was last changed): . I'll come back and close this in a few days. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no real issue with dropping "Air Force Station" from these (though I still think redirects would be the better option), but I do oppose moving those two from Spaceport Florida. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Liked the removal of "AFS"; however, the two new additions are opposed. They were named by Space Florida, and there is no evidence that the two names are not the common, as well as official, names for the launch complexes. Nor do I see any evidence that the two proposed titles are used anywhere in reliable sources. So sorry, but it looks like someone just reached into the sky and pulled those last two proposed titles down out of nowhere.  PI Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 07:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: So it seems that the majority of responders are okay with shortening "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station" to "Cape Canaveral," but no consensus exists on the issue of whether or not to retain "Spaceport Florida." - Jadebenn (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I was wrong. At the time of writing this, this is how the votes stack out:


 * Oppose the move.
 * Opposes the two moves involving "Spaceport Florida" but supports the rest.
 * Supports the move only if the two "Spaceport Florida" articles are moved as well, otherwise is opposed.
 * supports the move.


 * So that's currently 3 v. 2 against the move whether or not the "Spaceport Florida articles are moved.
 * You voted to oppose the move full-stop, but then mentioned in a comment that you primarily disliked the addition of the two "Spaceport Florida" articles. Can you clarify whether you're in opposition to the move either way, or just those two additions? - Jadebenn (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify,, I'm now neutral on the overall move, but strictly oppose moving the Spaceport Florida articles. Again, I really feel that redirects are the best answer overall rather than changing what are realistically the more "correct" titles, and provides the same flexibility in accessing the existing articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – It was not pulled "out of nowhere", it was simply a natural reaction to the launch sites being named by geography, rather than ownership. Do note that both of Spaceport Florida's launch sites were previously Cape Canaveral Air Force Station launch sites as well, so it's not like it wasn't ever called a Cape Canaveral launch complex by name. In fact, numerous third party sources still call them by Cape Canaveral.[1 ][2 ][3 ][4 ] The Air Force and NASA also still call them by Cape Canaveral.[5 ][6 ] To reiterate my stance, renaming Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's launch sites by geography, but not Spaceport Florida's launch sites, will be confusing. You'll have numerous launch sites on the geographic Cape Canaveral named after it, but two launch sites seemingly arbitrarily not so. It's either we name them by ownership or geography, not a mix of both, in my view. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 01:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle Mark III to fullfil the WP:COMMONNAME criteria. Please help us build a consensus. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Spaceflight since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as infobox journal for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as starbox begin should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of requested move
Despite not part of that WikiProject, I am giving a notice of an RM of the article International Space Station United States National Laboratory. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:20, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Another notice of a requested move
Notice of an RM at Command Module Columbia. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

German Space Operations Center
I have WP:BOLDly created the article German Space Operations Center from the corresponding article in German Wikipedia. If we have a people who know German, they can help us building that article. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Second move discussion at Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor
A new proposal to move Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor to Large Ultraviolet Optical Infrared Surveyor is being discussed at Talk:Large UV Optical Infrared Surveyor. Feel free to come and share your thoughts on the matter! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

List of space launch system designs
I have WP:TNTed the article List of space launch system designs because it was beyond fixing. Feel free to contribute on that article, the article before the TNT is currently preserved on the edit history. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your WP:TNT. The quality of the article is pretty poor, yes, but I don't think it's so poor to warrant such a drastic measure, especially without a higher-quality replacement. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 17:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My replaced version was in higher-quality and in WP:WIP. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's a WIP, can you draft it until it's ready to replace the page? I really have no compunction axing the page as it stands currently, but I don't like replacing a complete (if low-quality) article with one that is clearly still in development. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 08:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have created a draft of the freshly started list. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of merger proposal
There is a merger proposal at Talk:Space capsule --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:SIRIUS (Scientific International Research in Unique Terrestrial Station). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Starship images
Discuss at Commons:Deletion requests/Non-free artist's concept of SpaceX Starship. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved its clear that there is no consensus regarding these moves. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

– After a failure to gain consensus in the previous discussion about these articles' names, I'm proposing that "Air Force Station" be truncated to simply "AFS" so that at the very least the titles would be consistent with the articles for Vandenberg Air Force Base launch sites, such as Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4 and Vandenberg AFB Launch Complex 576. This discussion will also serve as a proxy discussion for whether or not the naming of Vandenberg's launch sites with the prefix "Vandenberg AFB" is preferred over "Vandenberg Air Force Base" – should there be a consensus to keep Cape Canaveral Air Force Base's article titles, Vandenberg's articles will be moved accordingly per the aforementioned WP:TITLECON. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 05:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 1 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 1
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 2 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 2
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 3 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 3
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 4 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 4
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 5 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 5
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 6 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 6
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 9 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 9
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 11 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 11
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 12 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 12
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 13 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 13
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 14 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 14
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 15 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 15
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 16 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 16
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 17 → Cape Canaveral AFS Space Launch Complex 17
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 18 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 18
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 19 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 19
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 20 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 20
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 21 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 21
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 22 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 22
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 25 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 25
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 26 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 26
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 29 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 29
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 30 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 30
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 31 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 31
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 32 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 32
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 34 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 34
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 37 → Cape Canaveral AFS Space Launch Complex 37
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 40 → Cape Canaveral AFS Space Launch Complex 40
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 41 → Cape Canaveral AFS Space Launch Complex 41
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 43 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 43
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 45 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 45
 * Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 47 → Cape Canaveral AFS Launch Complex 47
 * Support per nom. The abbreviation "AFS" is unambiguous. Procedural close per Dekimasu. Move Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4, Vandenberg AFB Launch Complex 576, etc. to Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 4, Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Complex 576, etc. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment. The names requested here garnered multiple early opposes in the previous request, which caused the nominator to alter the requested names to those shown in the closed discussion above. Dekimasu よ! 12:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the full name works fine, is accurate, and is consistent with the parent title (Cape Canaveral Air Force Station). Abbreviation's are often confusing and don't communicate to everyone, so, since this is not broken, better to leave the full name. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Previously discussed and I just don't like unnecessary acronyms in titles. "AFB" may more commonly used than "AFS", but I think I'd support changing the Vandenberg article titles if you proposed that. Fcrary (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what I'm proposing, yes. The Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg article titles need to be consistent more than anything, and if there's a consensus to keep the status quo for the Cape Canaveral articles, then the Vandenberg article titles will be changed to be more consistent. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I have another proposal opposing my !vote, which is to move the "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex n" articles to "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station LC-n". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that solves the issue. – Jadebenn (talk ·&#32;contribs ·&#32;subpages) 08:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggesting Procedural Close Both VAFB and CCAFS are very likely going to be renamed now that the United States Space Force has been established. We may as well hold off until that happens. – Jadebenn (talk ·&#32;contribs ·&#32;subpages) 01:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Until there's actual names, it doesn't matter at this point in time, because we don't have any "Space Force" names to move these articles to yet. There's a reason the SpaceNews source you cited uses language such as "would" and "could" about potential names, after all. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Plus, something I'd missed while reading the article the first time is that they're anticipating renaming the bases a few months down the line, not a few weeks like I'd originally assumed. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 11:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural close per Jadebenn. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notification of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:Rocket engines of SpaceX. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move of Vandenberg AFB Launch Complex articles

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn - Name change imminent due to establishment of United States Space Force - no need to be redundant. – Jadebenn (talk ·&#32;contribs ·&#32;subpages) 01:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

– Acronyms in titles are no bueno; Previous move discussions involving Cape Canaveral Air Force Station have shown a clear consensus for full names over potentially ambiguous abbreviations. – Jadebenn (talk ·&#32;contribs ·&#32;subpages) 19:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 1 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 1
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 2 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 2
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 3 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 3
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 4 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 4
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 5 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 5
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 6 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 6
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 8 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 8
 * Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 10 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 10
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Complex 576 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Complex 576
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Emplacement 8 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Emplacement 8
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 02 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 02
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 03 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 03
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 04 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 04
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 05 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 05
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 06 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 06
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 07 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 07
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 08 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 08
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 09 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 09
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 10 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 10
 * Vandenberg AFB Launch Facility 21 → Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Facility 21

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support per nom. It also supports my previous !vote. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm not sure if you guys actually read the original move proposal, but this discussion is identical to the first discussion. The outcome of that move proposal will determine if these articles will be renamed, not this one. This should be a procedural close. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 07:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * PTG, this is not identical to the previous discussion, because the proposal in this discussion is to expand the acronyms. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's an identical proposal. I'm going to quote my original proposal, so that it'll be difficult to be ignorant of it this time: "This discussion will also serve as a proxy discussion for whether or not the naming of Vandenberg's launch sites with the prefix "Vandenberg AFB" is preferred over "Vandenberg Air Force Base" – should there be a consensus to keep Cape Canaveral Air Force Base's article titles, Vandenberg's articles will be moved accordingly per the aforementioned WP:TITLECON." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some malformed text in the previous move discussion that suggests something along those lines, but it's difficult to read and due to it being malformed I thought it was a mistake. It's not very clear at all. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 08:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I see what you mean now. I'm a dummy. Still, I think it's advantageous to seperate out the move discussions like this. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 08:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's a consensus in the original move discussion to use full names rather than acronymns in the titles of these articles, how is it "advantageous" to delay the implementation of this consensus by starting an unnecessary second discussion? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 08:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it not be easy for someone opposed to the move to argue that a full debate was not held under your discussion scheme, and/or that it was conflating two different issues? I understand and support your logic, but wouldn't this way avoid that potential weakness? – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 16:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wow, the "Vandenberg AFB Launch Complex n" articles are moved to the "Vandenberg Air Force Base Launch Complex n"! Anyway, I am waiting for the US Space Force to rename the VAFB to Vandenberg Space Force Base (VSFB). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Mobile launcher platform
I have created a draft to replace the corresponding article. Feel free to contribute on the draft. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Rfc notification on Space force
An Rfc has been opened on Talk:Space force to get feedback on a proposal to change the title and redirect the term space force to United States Space Force. Schazjmd  (talk)  15:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Use of photographs published by NASA HQ PHOTO
The NASA HQ PHOTO Flickr account, from which many images on Wikimedia are sourced from, often use the photos of third-party photographers, while crediting the images as "NASA/[photographer]", i.e. "NASA/Joel Kowsky" and "NASA/Bill Ingalls". These images are then published on the account with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) license – one explicitly marked as not acceptable on Wikimedia. My question regarding this is simply, do we continue to allow photographs from this Flickr account on Commons? Does public domain licensing for U.S. government works still apply in this rather unique situation? I've, using File:Starliner OFT Rollout.jpg as an example. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 23:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if that may be a limitation of the Flickr software. Either way, I believe the US laws regarding NASA material take precedence over what license is marked on a third party host of them. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 00:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if the photographs themselves are by third parties? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the current summary of Starliner OFT Rollout.jpg, it is no longer from Flickr. Instead, it is from the NASA image gallery. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how this changes things. It's the same photograph... but hosted some place else. Is there a source explicitly stating that every photograph at images.nasa.gov is published for free use? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Consult the NASA's copyright policy. It clearly says, "It is unlawful to falsely claim copyright or other rights in NASA material." The "NASA HQ Photo" Flickr account violated the policy and published the images under CC-BY-NC-ND license. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:50, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of splitting proposal
There is a splitting proposal at Talk:Grasshopper (rocket). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the nomenclature dispute on Artemis 1
Discuss at Talk:Artemis 1. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC of interest to this Wikiproject
Please see Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches as it is within the scope of this wikiproject and may be of interest to editors here. Cheers, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) (click me!)    23:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:List of H-I and H-II_launches. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Politics_of_the_International_Space_Station#Brazil
Someone with access of this article: Brazilian participation in the International Space Station (ISS) program: commitment or bargain struck? could see if it is useful to expand this section? Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:Studied Space Shuttle Variations and Derivatives. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Orel (spacecraft)
Found a move discussion related to this WikiProject, on moving said page to Federatsiya. see Talk:Orel (spacecraft). Thanks. OkayKenji (talk page) 04:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on European Service Module
There is an ongoing RfC discussion at Talk:European Service Module to determine consensus around which variety of English the article should use. – Jadebenn (talk ·&#32;contribs ·&#32;subpages) 11:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This is no longer an RfC, just a regular discussion. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For those who can't find the discussion may go to here. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 07:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:K-1 (rocket). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC on 24 January 2020
There is an RfC at Talk:Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2019
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus for the Starlink move is weak and participants suggest it may need renamed in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

– "Raptor" is not a class of rocket engines. I suggest to rename it à la "Rocketdyne F-1". I also suggest to rename several articles on the same manner. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Raptor (rocket engine family) → SpaceX Raptor
 * Merlin (rocket engine family) → SpaceX Merlin
 * Kestrel (rocket engine) → SpaceX Kestrel
 * DragonFly (capsule) → SpaceX DragonFly
 * Draco (rocket engine family) → SpaceX Draco
 * Starlink (satellite constellation) → SpaceX Starlink
 * Support: This is a good natural disambiguation as well, though for consistency both with the other SpaceX names and other rocket engine articles, I also believe the Merlin article should be moved as well. We don't call it RS-25 (rocket engine family) for example. – Jadebenn (talk ·&#32;contribs ·&#32;subpages) 04:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added more articles in the RM. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 08:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: at least Starlink. Xfinity is not Comcast Xfinity, Lexus is not Toyota Lexus. — Sbsail talk 23:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Natural disambiguation is not always mandatory, only use if needed. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a poor example, since Xfinity and Lexus don't need disambiguation while Starlink (satellite constellation) does. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 18:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – seems like the sensible move. Not only does it buck the need for parentheses disambiguation, but would also provide consistency with articles such as SpaceX Starship. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 18:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess this makes sense, by analogy with Toyota Corolla and others. But I don't know naming practices well enough for this to be a firm opinion. Kingdon (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – agree that even the Starlink case could use the disambiguation of SpaceX Starlink until it reaches the brand status of the likes of Lexus.--2600:1012:B007:1997:42D:587A:5469:E329 (talk) 05:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose renaming Starlink. SpaceX has announced plans to sell some satellites in the constellation to other operators, so including SpaceX in the name can be misleading. Further, large constellations like the Broadband Global Area Network (operated by Inmarsat) and O3b (now a subsidiary of SES S.A.) do not include parent company names in the article.--Cincotta1 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, with the caveat that I wouldn't be opposed to moving Starlink back later (or leaving Starlink out of the move for now, if that's where the chips fall). It does seem to present a more complicated issue, but that shouldn't delay us from what seems like a natural move for the other articles. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for Starlink, if not the others - it makes sense, is consistent, and can always be moved back if some are sold. Sir Magnus (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for all of them. Starlink may need to be renamed in the future but the name proposed seems fine for now. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all but Starlink. I would agree with others that it is a fundamentally different issue, and should be discussed on its own merits rather than part of this group.  C Thomas<sup style="font-size: x-small; color: brown;">3   (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: changing Starlink. It's already branded, trademarked etc. It's not _Star Trek: Enterprise_. It's not a TV Series based on a previous one. The naming convention is what the company calls it, and if there isn't a similarly popular thing with the same name that would require the parent company's name. Keep Starlink as is as the title for that page. Others, nah, but it ain't a hard nah. Abebenjoe (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NATURALDAB, when disambiguation is needed, then add the manufacturer, like the F-1, or other aerospace topics, like Rolls-Royce Merlin or Boeing 747 ; also the Starlink network is explicitly linked in the press and astronomy circles to SpaceX very clearly and frequently, so should also be moved, per NATURALDAB. And WP:CONCISE, since they are all also shorter. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – All. 2001:18C0:61C:700:651D:E712:9744:2131 (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: only use disambiguation if needed. --Neuhaus (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a poor argument of your poll. The RMed articles do need disambiguation. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 16:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Launch mount landing pad
The RfD of the redirect "launch mount landing pad" had no consensus. On the other hand, the concept is not explained on the target article. Therefore, I have turned the redirect into an article (it was undone by an expert editor because the article was unsourced, so I have drafted the article). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of merger proposal
There is a merger proposal at Talk:Mobile_launcher_platform. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Notification of requested moves
There are requested moves at Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_1. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification of deletion request
There is a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/Non-free images of SpaceX. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Perigee Aerospace, Blue Whale 1 and general notability of small rockets+manufacturers
We don't seem to have an article about this: Blue Whale 1, Perigee Aerospace. They plan an orbital launch in July 2020: News 1, News 2. A rocket that has flown to space and its manufacturer should be notable without much discussion, but how do we handle the many startups that didn't launch things yet? On a case by case basis? --mfb (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it meets WP:ORG? OkayKenji (talk page) 23:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Orbex has not launched but has a page, perhaps because of their reusablity plans. OkayKenji (talk page) 23:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have articles like NewSpace and List of private spaceflight companies which mention a whole bunch of companies. Even if a company isn't noteworthy enough to have its own article (yet), it might easily warrant a brief mention in one of those articles. Fcrary (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it there for now (and updated half the table because it was outdated), but if they prepare an orbital rocket now they can probably get an article. --mfb (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Now we have Perigee Aerospace. The rocket is a redirect to that article until there is enough information for separate articles. --mfb (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Axiom Station page creation
Okay, it's research time. With the news that Axiom Space has been selected to connect modules to the International Space Station, I think it's time to create a page specific to the Axiom Station. --Poomfang (Talk : Contrib) 10:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to create a stub on the aforementioned announcement. It is now mentioned on the "Proposed extensions" section of the US Orbital Segment article. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification of RfC
There is an RfC at Template_talk:Infobox_spaceflight. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 11:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Topping off ceremony, SMARF to SPOC
Hello! My name is Megan and I work for the United Launch Alliance (ULA). I'm following User:ULA christa as the company's Wikipedia representative. My goal is to improve a few articles related to ULA by posting talk page requests for consideration, and I look forward to working with editors to make this project better.

I've posted a request at Talk:Vulcan_(rocket) to possibly update the Vulcan (rocket) and ULA articles with information about the topping off ceremony for the MLP that will support Vulcan, as well as SMARF's renaming to SPOC.

I know editors here have helped with similar requests before, so I figured I'd introduce myself and hopefully get some feedback. Thanks for your patience as I learn more about how Wikipedia works. Thanks! ULA Megan (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Dragon 2 In-Flight Abort Test
It seems like the In-Flight Abort Test conducted by SpaceX is highly notable. Therefore, I have created a draft on the subject. Feel free to contribute on and/or submit the draft. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedifying the private spaceflight article
The private spaceflight article is more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. Therefore, I am trying to encyclopedify the article on my userspace with more information. Feel free to contribute on the draft. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent Changes Link
The Recent Changes link on the Project Page doesn't seem to be working... Checked to see if the tool used migrated to ToolForge, and it looks like it did but it's not working. Am I doing something wrong? https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/WikiProjectRecentChanges.php PedanticLlama (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon
There is a destubathon in March that we can use to motivate us to reduce our stub count. I identified a few stubs but can find more if we somehow deplete the list. There are other non-spaceflight articles to expand as well, which is the main focus of the competition. Sign up on the page if interested.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

GA/FA ratings
The topic of rating WP articles has always fascinated me, and I wanted to open up a discussion.

Now that I'm producing "B" class articles with reasonable reliability, it would seem logical to then submit them for GA review. But that poses the question, "Does it really matter?" The difference between B and GA is slight, but every GA review requires the attentions of someone who could be producing more content. As for FA, phew -- that's a ton of work for a good half dozen people or more over the course of weeks. I get the desire to have perfect content for the front page, but is it worth the time?

I'm the sort of fellow who will generate articles for all of the SOLRADs, the OVs, the Explorers, etc. I recognize they can and should also be summarized into program articles, and perhaps those should be GA/FAs, but I feel the individual missions are worth articles, too (and this process makes generating summary articles easier, in the end). Do folks really want to have to GA review everything I do?

I'd love your thoughts. --Neopeius (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't do it for the badge, do it if you think the article should become excellent. I was part of 2 FA in the German Wikipedia and one featured list here, for some other FA/GA I helped a bit. It's a lot of work, but usually the result is really good. Are 30 new stubs more useful than one FA? Depends on the existing coverage, I think. --mfb (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What mfb says is righght. You cannot win on Wikipedia. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 09:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I use the GA process to get feedback (I'm still new to writing) and socialise. It makes it feel less like I'm working in a vacuum. Doesn't sound like that's true for your individual mission articles, so maybe it's not worth it for you. However, I think wikipedia takes all sorts, so I don't think it's true that time spend on a GA review is time away from writing an article - it scratches a different itch. --Spacepine (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The main purpose is to get peer review feedback. GA does this through both a GA review, and for an opportunity to send to DYK. If the article is DYK-eligible already, I would send it there first (you can nominate for both at the same time). All B-class articles should be suitable for GA. A much better review can come from the A-class review process, where it will arract the attention of the subject experts. Regrettably, only WP:MILHIST articles are eligible, as WP:WikiProject Spaceflight does not have an A-class review process. Articles can also be sent to FL or FA for review, but opportunities for this are limited.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Luckily, the series I'm currently working on (Orbiting Vehicle) is a military satellite program. :) --Neopeius (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reviews helped me identify problems in my writing. I wrote more background information, improved my image copyright skills, better introductions, and better citations. An outside reviewer can help identify your own blind spots on an article. You of course do not have to do them; writing new articles and expanding them is always useful.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt. You folks have been tremendously helpful. Tell you what -- I will submit for Good Article *one* of my OV2s, with the notion that, since they are modular, one Good Article will ensure the quality of the rest (and also make the others a breeze to review when the time comes). I guess I just feel guilty since I don't have a great deal of time to spend on Good Reviews, myself. --Neopeius (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

North Korean space launch vehicle diagram
I'm debating whether someone should modify this diagram to remove the rockets labeled "Taepodong-1" and "Taepodong-2" or delete it altogether because what the Pentagon called the Taepodong-1 in the 1990s was actually a three-stage space rocket and the Taepodong-2 is apparently the space rocket launched by the DPRK in 2009, 2012, and 2016 according to the 38 North website. For one thing, the Defense Department in the 1990s thought that North Korea was developing a fixed pad-launched long-range ballistic missile, but the fact that the only flight of the Paektusan-1 ("Taepodong-1") was intended to launch a satellite suggests that what the Pentagon called the "Taepodong" was merely a prestige project by the Kim dynasty to tell the North Korean people that North Korea was a 21st century country techwise despite its broken-down command economy.70.175.133.224 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
 * It seems like no one is answering on the demand by the IP user Demirijan. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that web site. Can someone confirm that it's reliable or provide an additional reference? Fcrary (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at 38 North's wikipedia page, the owners and managers look reputable. The author's page has a lot of writers affiliated with universities, research institutes, and government agencies. It is used pretty regularly as a citation in our articles about North Korea. I think it is reliable, but I am not sure which I would favor if it disagrees with a US gov't publication.--Cincotta1 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Notification of deletion request
Discuss at Commons:Deletion_requests/Non-free_images_of_SpaceX. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

October 1989 Spaceflight Magazine
Does anyone have a copy of the October 1989 edition of Spaceflight Magazine? A citation in LGM-25C Titan II is Powell, Joel W.; Caldwell, Lee Robert (October 1989). Spaceflight Magazine. Unfortunately no page number or other information. I was hoping to get a page number and title of the article for this citation. If no one here has it I can try at the Resource Request.  Kees08  (Talk)   19:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 24
You are invited to join the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 24. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)