Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group/Archive 4

Lead sections
Would it be a good idea to write a lead section for the timeline articles, summarising the key events of each year (manned flights, major probes, maiden flights, etc)?

I've drafted an example for the 2008 timeline:

Any comments? -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 11:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

templates, microformats
It tables of events like the one on 1952 in spaceflight are converted to use templates (one instance per row), then the template can also include the hCalendar microformat, allowing the events to be exported, plotted using on-line tools, etc. By way of example, see the Episode list template, used in List of Time Team episodes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How would this affect instances that span multiple rows (ie. multiple payloads, split using rowspan)? -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would probably require a different row-template; but can you give me an example (or examples, if there's more than type of one arrangement) to look at, please, to be sure? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are two examples taken from 2008 in spaceflight. The PSLV launch occupies a single row as it has only one payload. The Shuttle has two, and therefore uses two rows:


 * Perhaps you could provide an example of the new format that you propose.-- GW_SimulationsUser Page 06:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The microformat classes are likely to apply to the first three columns (applying classes "dtstart summary" for start date; "participant" and "location" respectively) with a class of "vevent" for the whole entry, so I don't foresee any problem. a class of "note" could be applied to the payload, but multiple instances of that are allowed. Wiki-markup for tables isn't my strong point, but I'll see what I can do. Aside from the class names, and whatever date-format comes out of the ongoing discussions elsewhere, the output should look identical. What are the maximum number of "Payload" rows per launch, in current usage? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the most payloads I've seen in the TLS pages is 19. -MBK004 23:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There were 26 on the Dnepr launched in late July 2006 (the failure), but the numbers are theoretically unlimited. Following the recent change of format, templates have been introduced, so if you want to have a look and see if your proposal will work with them, feel free. I got round the multiple payloads issue by using an individual template for each payload, stacked within the template for the launch. -- G W … 23:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Change of scope
Just a suggestion, but I think it would be a good idea to bring lists of launches by specific rockets under the jurisdiction of this project, as they follow a similar format to articles already handled by this project. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 17:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If there are no objections I'll implement this on 15 November. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. I'll start tagging articles. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

GMT
Seeing as all the times in the lists are (or at least should) be in GMT, does anyone mind if the suffix "GMT" is dropped from times in the tables, and replaced with a single notice at the top of the column? -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 17:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, I think it would be a good idea to drop the word "launch" from the first and third columns, and replace "launch contractor" with LSP (linked to the article). "Mission function" makes no sense, and should be replaced with one or the other (I'd prefer the latter), an alternative might be "Purpose". We could also go back to separating date and time with  rather than a comma, which would allow the column width to be reduced. Another improvement might be to use brackets for docked craft (eg. replace "LEO, docked to ISS" with "LEO (ISS)"), which would further save space. Narrower columns are needed, as the tables are spilling off of the screen on some pages (eg 2008). -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 17:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections I'll implement this on 15 November. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. For a follow-up, I would also like to propose that "still in orbit" is replaced with "in orbit", and "successful so far" is replaced with "ongoing", for the same reasons. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 in spaceflight up for peer review
In order to improve timeline of spaceflight articles, I have requested that 2008 in spaceflight be peer reviewed. Please comment on the article here. Thanks -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Major redesign
Following on from comments made in the ongoing peer review of 2008 in spaceflight, I have proposed a major change of format and design for TLS articles. This page is a complete rewrite of 2008 in spaceflight, which I have used to demonstrate the new format. Changes are: I feel that these changes will significantly improve the timeline, and that they should be implemented across all applicable articles. A comparison of the new format with comments raised so far by the peer review can be found here. Are there any comments or feedback? -- G W … 23:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction of an infobox
 * Introduction of a lead section
 * Introduction of images at the top of the page
 * Switch to a multilayered table, giving more room for information. This solves the page width issues, and looks a lot nicer than the old format.
 * Removal of overlinking to the same articles. When a rocket, company, launch site, etc is mentioned, it is linked the first time, and then not again unless it is in a different version.
 * Reduction of jargon, shorter terms such as "LEO", "HEO", etc replaced by more descriptive expanded terms
 * Templates used to format table, making editing easier, as well as future format changes. Unlike the last attempt to format TLS articles with templates, these will be transcluded, which will eliminate the issues caused by substitution.
 * Introduction of a pie chart into the orbital launch summary section
 * I say go for it, this is an extremely positive change and would be an excellent candidate for FLC as it stands. -MBK004 23:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing, on the issue of overlinking, it may be better to link to the articles once in each month as well because for instance if something is mentioned and linked in January but not mentioned again until December it might be more of a difficulty to have to scroll up to click the link if someone was so inclined. -MBK004 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Could be, but because quite a few rockets are not launched much more than once a month, we could end up back where we started. I would suggest we go with it as-is for now, and see how it goes after a month or so. I'm probably going to implement this on Friday, if there are no objections, as it would be good to have it in place before the first launches of 2009 go. -- G W … 19:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been no objections, so I'm going to start implementing this. As I stated above, I would advise discussing the links issue in about a month, once we're used to the format. If you want to raise it sooner, though, then that's fine. -- G W … 08:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"[year] in space exploration" categories
I have proposed that the "[year] in space exploration" categories be renamed "[year] in spaceflight", to bring them in line with a) their content and b) the articles maintained by this project. Please can project members comment and !vote on the issue on today's CfD page. Thanks. -- G W … 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 in spaceflight and FLC

 * Copied from my talk page. -- G W … 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking (and I don't think I'm alone), about the possibility of taking 2008 in spaceflight to WP:FLC. Since the peer review and redesign, and reviewing the FL criteria, there are two things: I would be interested in your thoughts about this. -MBK004 22:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is now way too big per Lead_section. Perhaps the current lead would be better as a summary section and a shorter lead could be written?
 * WP:V and WP:RS, some of the sources used may not meet those policies.
 * I think that it would be good to try and get the page featured. I agree that the lead section should probably be split. My only concern is regarding sourcing. If due to the increased requirements for verifiability, some material cannot be confirmed from a compatible source, what would be done about that material. If the answer is that it would be removed, then I would sooner continue with an unfeatured but complete list than feature it at the expense of, for example, suborbital launches that can only be verified through use of an acceptable but not excellent source. -- G W … 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There could also be a slight problem with point 6 of the criteria (regarding redlinks). I'll try and fill in a few of the gaps. -- G W … 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck - it's not as bad as I remembered. -- G W … 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Generic references
I think we should drop the generic references section. Inline citations should be used throughout the articles, and I feel that having a collection of links at the bottom adds nothing. The section should be removed, and links to the sources it lists should be provided inline, as and where appropriate. -- G W … 11:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can revisit this issue later once all of the years have been converted to the new format because until then they do provide some credence to the lists because we do not want them to be tagged with unreferenced do we? -MBK004 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, I think I was a little unclear, but I meant that they should be removed as references are added. Deprecation would be a slow process -- G W … 22:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Serial numbers
Would it be worth trying to integrate serial numbers of rockets (where known) into the articles, either as a new field, or as part of the rocket field? -- G W … 11:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm torn on this issue, since for one it would introduce more information to what is already a pretty-full area when you look at how Delta II, Atlas V, Ariane 4, and Titan IV are listed, to add the S/N has both pros and cons. I'd have to see examples of it as a new field or added to an existing one to know for certain which would be best if we decided to implement. -MBK004 20:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've set up an example of adding it to either the rocket or remarks field here. I haven't got round to demonstrating it as a new section yet, but thinking about it, I would favour using the remarks field, as it is the only field that it can be added to without cutting into existing sections. -- G W … 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer using the remarks section as well. I don't see why we should not go ahead and implement, as long as we can properly source the serials. -MBK004 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

EVA times
I've noticed that two different timing systems are in use for EVAs. The US definition is from the end of airlock depressurisation to the start of repressurisation, whilst the Russia and China define EVAs as being from hatch opening to hatch closure. Currently the different national systems are being used for the times in the EVA tables. I would suggest that we either standardise on one national system or the other, or that we list both, so as to eliminate confusion between the different formats. If we do standardise I would prefer the Russian system as it is more intuitive, and under the US system, the re-entry of Soyuz 11 would technically have been an EVA. -- G W … 21:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we even have the durations in the Russian system for US EVAs? -MBK004 04:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This lists everything upto 27 September 2008 in both systems. It should be possible to work out later EVAs from websites such as NASASpaceflight.com and Spaceflight Now, which provide live text coverage. -- G W … 07:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1962 in spaceflight
I had to split 1962 in spaceflight as it had become too large for the server to cope with. -- G W … 09:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Split pages above 150kb
Would it be a good idea to split some of the longer pages which take a long time to load, whilst not being large enough to cause technical problems (as with 1962). I would suggest that we split pages for completed years that are over 150kb in size. This would currently apply to 1960, 1961 and 2008. -- G W … 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2009 is currently 115kb, and once the year is complete and the lead is finished along with proper referencing I could see it easily going above 150 as well. As for the splits, I'm not a big fan of it unless it is absolutely necessary for technical reasons. I prefer to have all the launches on a single page even if it is quite long. -MBK004 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Launch outcomes

 * Copied from my talk page -- G W  /P … 09:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should add another column called 'reference' quoting launch outcome news. At present after a launch we generally don't have a common place to add references related to that launch. So a seperate reference column could help maintain uniformity throughout the article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Either we should create a separate column (probably the best way?) or standardize where exactly the ref should go in. Offliner (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about splitting the outcome field horizontally into "Launch Outcome" and "Flight Outcome", or similar. I don't think there's space for as new column, and besides I have grown to hate putting references at the ends of rows with no indication of which information they are intended to relate to. An alternative could be stating "Successful launch" in the outcome field, above "operational". This could be reduced to just a generic "Successful" once the spacecraft successfully completes its mission, or left as "Successful launch  Spacecraft failure", if that is the case. Which would you prefer? -- G  W  /P … 18:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer the second one. 'Launch Outcome' and 'Flight outcome' sound very similar and could be confusing. So, the second one would be a better choice. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Followup
I have moved the above discussion here to allow a wider audience to discuss it. Is there any support/opposition/comments with regards to implementing this, in either form, across TLS pages? -- G W  /P … 09:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

DSR sections for articles with no DSRs
It seems fairly pointless to have an empty DSR section on pages with no DSRs. I would suggest that if it is necessary to explain that no such events occurred in a specific year, this would be better accomplished via a note in the lead. We don't have empty EVA tables for years in which no EVAs were performed, and there are no orbital launch summaries in the articles on years in which no orbital launch attempts were made. I would have thought that the absence of such a section would be enough evidence of a lack of such events anyway. -- G W … 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to removing such empty sections? -- G W … 22:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

CHN instead of PRC
I think that it would be better to use CHN instead of PRC in this template


 * BRA=1
 * PRC=1
 * EUR=1
 * EUR=1
 * FRA=1
 * IND=1
 * INT=1
 * IRN=1
 * ISR=1
 * JPN=1
 * PRK=1
 * RUS=1
 * KOR=1
 * USSR=1
 * UK=1
 * USA=1

because it's the real code for China. Polylepsis (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I used PRC to avoid confusion with the Republic of China/Taiwan, which is currently working on developing its own launch capability. Either way, I fail to see how changing the variable name would be anything but a complete waste of time since the code is only used to pass information to the template, and the code does not show up in the article. The only effect changing it would have would be to neccessitate editing every article which already includes that template in order to make it compatible. -- G W … 21:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, polylepsis is right : CHN is the real code for China Toutvientapoint (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck since Toutvientapoint is a confirmed sock of Polylepsis. -- G W … 09:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the whole discussion before commenting, that is not the issue here. -- G W … 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to OLS
I'd like to propose some changes to the orbital launch summaries; firstly splitting all entries for rockets by configuration, and introducing an additional list for families, and secondly by introducing a list for launch sites. -- G W … 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support with no objections, I've seen that done elsewhere on the web, Ed Kyle's website being the one that stands out in my mind. -MBK004 04:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Four days with no objections. I'd usually leave it a bit longer, but I can't see any problem with it, so I'm going to get started. -- G W … 08:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Long pages (again)
I'd like to raise the issue of long pages again. I believe the database may be having difficulty coping with them. Two main errors are apparent: Firstly, when saving to some of the longer pages, a connection timeout can occur. This is a fairly minor problem, in most cases the edit still saves, and the user is presented with a standard Wikimedia error page. The second error is potentially more serious, in that when a page is saved, a small amount of text from a seemingly random location in the body of text being saved may be copied over another portion of text elsewhere in the article, as seen in this diff (the first section only). Do we need to further split articles in order to limit these problems? -- G W … 20:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a split by quarters (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) is in order for 1965 (I suggest when the page gets above 150kb a split is needed). We may also want to split many more years into two, 1961 being the most obvious at 199kb, it takes a full minute for me on broadband to load. -MBK004 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Since you were the only person to oppose this last time round, and it is causing serious problems (particularly the loading issue), I'll start this immediately. -- G W … 08:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, although somebody will have to go through and sort out the links. I split 1960, 1961, 2008 and 2009 into halves, and 1962, 1964 and 1965 into quarters. Would it be worth including a shorter list, perhaps just orbital launches, on the main article for pages which have been split? -- G W … 10:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

NSSDC proposal for years with incomplete launch listings
I propose using url query syntax to cite NSSDC for the number of spacecraft launched in years where the current timeline article has an incomplete listing. With this edit I have used the 1968 article to demonstrate the syntax involved. Comments? (sdsds - talk) 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would go further, and add this information to all years regardless of completion, as I have done here for 2009. I would also suggest expanding "NSSDC", and noting that its data (usually) only relates to launches which have reached orbit. -- G W … 08:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations for operational status
There have been some requests for citations to show that satellites are still operational. I would like to ask how, exactly, this can be achieved, since this status can change at any time, so new sources would have to be found every day to confirm that status. Since this is impossible, I would like to propose that operational status be assumed for any spacecraft which has not yet reached the end of its design life, unless otherwise cited. -- G W … 07:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, quite simply, it is impossible to confirm this every single day. Usually there is at least a press release when the status does change. -MBK004 18:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)