Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/Archive 2

Category:Space Launches by Month/Year
Someone recently made this category, and started doing what this project seems to be doing.. just thought you should know. 131.111.8.103 09:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just redirected the (two) articles to 1957 in spaceflight, and taken the category to CFD. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Failure"
I would like to raise the issue of what defines a "failure" within TLS articles. For PR reasons, some launches are claimed to be "partially successful" when they have failed to deliver the payload to a usable orbit, because they have reached any orbit, or in some cases, simply because they have reached space. In order to maintain a consistent and neutral point of view, I would reccomend that a fixed definition of the usage of such terms within these articles.

The approach that I would favour is as follows:
 * Successful is used when
 * The mission is complete, and
 * All objectives have been accomplished
 * Failure is used when
 * No primary objectives are met, or
 * There is an LOC or LOCV scenario on a manned flight, or
 * The rocket fails to orbit (does not apply to sub-orbital launches), or
 * The spacecraft is placed inexerably in a useless orbit, or
 * The spacecraft fails to contact the ground after seperation, or
 * The spacecraft malfunctions within three months of reaching the correct orbit
 * Partial failure is used when:
 * Some primary mission objectives are met, but some are not, or
 * The carrier rocket places the payload into an incorrect orbit, but
 * The spacecraft can still operate in the incorrect orbit, or
 * The spacecraft can correct its own orbit

This will ensure that all TLS articles are consistent in their definition of what is successful, and what is not. I would appreciate feedback before I initiate a poll to implement it. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In lack of further discussion, I will initiate the poll anyway.-- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Closing: - I've given it a few weeks, there has been no opposistion, so I will implement the policy. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Support failure standardisation

 * 1) Nominate and support -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Next support vote here

Oppose failure standardisation

 * 1) First oppose vote here


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

Spelling of "Rendezvous"
Discussion at Talk:2007 in spaceflight has resulted in the adoption of the spelling "Rendezvous" over "Rendez-vous". Are there any objections to implementing this as project-wide policy? -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Closing: - I've given it a few weeks, there has been no opposistion, so I will implement the policy to standardise the spelling as "Rendezvous" instead of "Rendez-vous". -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Use "Rendezvous"

 * 1) Article title on Wikipedia - Rendezvous -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Next vote here

Use "Rendez-vous"

 * 1) First vote here

Do not standardise

 * 1) First vote here


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

Table format
Currently, all the articles are using the somewhat mix-and-match formatting {| border="2" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="2" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #555 solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 90%;"

Resulting in:

I recently noticed that the 2007 article had been changed to {| class="prettytable"

Which produces:

Although I have reverted this change for consistency with the other articles, I would reccomend that it is instated across all articles, replacing the existing formatting, as it looks better, and is clearer. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Proposal implemented - unopposed -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In favour of format change

 * Per my post above -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Next support vote

Against format change

 * First oppose vote

Discussion
In the absense of any discussion, I will close the poll sometime after midnight BST on 11 June. This will be delayed in the event of discussion. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Closed, passed and implemented, unopposed -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Language and date

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of discussion was implement most points, but do not implement exceptions relating to Chinese launch site names, pending further discussion - see below. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC) The languages and date formats vary article to article. I intended to use the D MMM date format for the early articles, but due to an error with the template, the MMM D format was used by mistake. This was corrected with the new template, but I have only recently noticed the variation. Therefore, just over half the articles use MMM D, but many of these are shorter articles. The rest, which are almost all much longer, use D MMM. This means that it is easier to standardise on D MMM.

In terms of language, there is little variation, but most variation, with the exception of place names (eg. KSC), is in favour of BrE. To standardise, I would like to pass a project ruling to proceed with the D MMM format and BrE for all articles. This is in line with WP:MOS, which states that the original author should select the nature of such variations, when there is no particular reason that one format or another should be used, as is the case here. I am the original author of 2006 in spaceflight (the original page), the main article, and most of the articles that would be affected by this move.

The exemption would be names which are spelled, without translation, in other dialects. Therefore, Kennedy Space Center would be used, not Kennedy Space Centre, however Xichang Satllite Launch Centre would be used, even though the article title is Center, because it is a translation. Also, when refering to the US DoD, defense should be used, but for other uses, defence should be used.

Please note: all votes that do not provide reasoning will be disregarded. This is to avoid people voting to use their own country's language as a matter of nationalism/patriotism, as opposed to for the benefit of the project articles. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In favour of proposal

 * Per my post above -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I support all of the above except the bit that uses Xichang as an example. Wouldn't it be better in this case to follow the lead of the Chinese government? On their English language website (e.g. at http://www.gov.cn/english/2006-12/08/content_464473_2.htm) they use "Center".... The reason we use "Center" for Kennedy is because that's what the people there use when they write the name using the Latin alphabet. The same should apply for Xichang. (sdsds - talk) 03:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the people in Florida acually use center. In China, the people will not call it "Xichang Satellite Launch Center", they will call it "西昌卫星发射中心". The translation is open to interpretation, depending on which version of English the translator speaks. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Next support vote

Against proposal

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

Further discussion
Closing to allow implementation of core policy, not implementing all exceptions at this time pending further discussion (here) over concerns raised about naming of Chinese launch sites (only US-specific exceptions to be implemented at this time). -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 19:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Avoid conflict
I think it might be a good idea to try to avoid names with different spellings as much as possible. For example, by using shortened forms, acronyms/abreviations, and alternative names. Examples of this would be:
 * Xichang or XSLC instead of Xichang Satellite Launch Centre (or Center)
 * Kennedy or KSC instead of Kennedy Space Center
 * CSG instead of Guiana Space Centre
 * MoD instead of Ministry of Defence
 * DoD instead of Department of Defense

This could also be extended to some words, such as:
 * Military instead of Defence/se
 * Rocket instead of Carrier Rocket/Launch Vehicle

This is just a suggestion, but it is one which I think would serve to make the articles more internationally-friendly. I would appriciate feedback. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 20:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As regards the Shavit payload
This recent (10 June) launch makes a great example. The cited source article at the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website uses Ofek 7 and OFEK 7. If we use Ofeq, we should cite a source that uses that spelling, and it should be a source more authoratative than the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The question to ask is, "When the people directly involved spell it in the Latin alphabet, what spelling do they use?" (sdsds - talk) 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

NASA document on wikisource that might be helpful
I have been working on a document the Mir Hardware Heritage on wikisource that might be of some use for Russian part of the project. It is about half timelines.Chris H 00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)