This is an archive of past discussions with User:Abebenjoe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I saw that you have listed yourself as a Toronto-area resident and I would like to inform you about a proposedWiki Meetup. If you are interested, feel free to add your input on the Toronto Meetuptalk page.
Hi there:
I think all the copyedit work has been completed on the David Lewis (politician) article, thereby completing the last item on your to-do list before it can be reviewed again. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and give it your seal of approval? Thanks again for your insights, they did improve the article substantially. --Abebenjoe14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize that I'm really busy this week and can't get to the article right now. I'll review it as soon as I have a chance. Cla6821:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Agnes
This is the thing, Agnes Macphail *was* a member of the CCF from 1932 until 1934 when the United Farmers of Ontario withdrew from the CCF (which is why she ran for re-election as a UFO candidate in 1935) and she was even president of the Ontario section of the CCF from 1933 to 1934. Political parties were not officially recognized in parliament for a few more decades or so (though they did exist for the purposes of the elections system) so the MPs who founded the CCF in 1932 are not listed in the parliamentary record as CCFers because they were not elected as CCFers in the 1930 election.
Regarding this edit: [1], I think the fact is wrong.
They had been the first people ever to leave the gravitational influence of the Earth}
I won't nitpick and claim it isn't possible with our current understanding of the universe to leave the gravitational influence of earth. I think the fact is wrong because leaving the gravitational influence of earth would mean entering a solar orbit. Going through a little math, halfway to the moon, earth was pulling on it with a little more than 1 netwon. Not much, but there is a difference. 10,822 m/s is also slower than escape velocity. Maybe I am nitpicking... 171.71.37.20700:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I realized that if the CSM was orbiting the earth around halfway between the earth and the moon, it would be pulled towards earth with about 1 newton of force. If there's enough force for an orbit, it's not really out of Earth's gravitational influence. 171.71.37.20719:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, you almost have it right, but not quite. It's like going over a hill. To quote Andrew Chaikin from his authoritative book A Man on the Moon, "It was as if the moonship were coasting up a hill, one that became less and less steep as it went along. About two days from now, on the afternoon of December 23, Apollo 8 would reach the gentle crest of that hill, the place where the earth's gravitational influence gave way to the moon's. From then on it would begin falling toward its destination." (Chaikin, p. 95) All bodies in space have a gravitational field, even an astronaut on an EVA has a gravitational field around them. In this case, the moon's gravitational influence becomes stronger, and the earth's disappears, even though the moon orbits the earth, it's the moon's gravity that is having an effect on the spacecraft when it reaches a certain point in space. Therefore, it is correct to say that Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to leave the earth's influence.--Abebenjoe01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to start getting into Lagrangian points, or barycentre, etc. For practical purposes, they left the earth's gravitational influence. Otherwise, it is also under the sun's gravity influence, and furthermore, under Galactic Centre's influence. All these are true to a point, but of course their influence is minor. Since the earth may still have a small influence in the region near or on the moon, in fact it stopped being a factor in real terms once Apollo 8 was about 55 hours into its mission, because the moon's gravity field took over, and it was this field that accelerated the CSM towards the moon. Furthermore, when Apollo 8 was orbiting the moon, it was being acted on by the moon's gravity, not earth's in terms of practicality. In some ways, you would be correct that Apollo 8, by orbiting the moon, it is still orbiting the earth, but the real order is Apollo 8 orbiting the moon, and the moon is orbiting the earth. Even not reaching true escape velocity, by a mere 400 meters per second, didn't prevent Apollo 8 from being captured by the moon. So, after this long winded explaination, I agree with you that there is still a minute influence from the earth, but for all practical purposes it is insignificant to the flight once Apollo 8 was near the moon or in lunar orbit. That's why for all intents and purposes, it is correct to say that Apollo 8 was the first manned spacecraft to leave the earth's gravity influence.
P.S., if you are going to continue to contribute to wikipedia, you should create an account. If your ip address changes, you won't be able to read replys or edit locked pages.--Abebenjoe02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
1960s
Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions. I don't know how much time I have, but I'm in the midst of some work on the Sixties anyway, and my first priority this morning (after the necessary Java) seems to have me back at Wikipedia. I'll do what I can. JStripes13:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like we've begun! It's daunting how much more needs done. At least it no longer begins with the election of Kennedy leading off social movements.
BTW, I know that Quebec had an electoral victory for the Left in 1960. Perhaps you could add something regarding Canadian Politics. JStripes19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The way you worded it had me questioning your motives. You did mention misunderstanding, but some of your other comments weren't so delicate. I appreciate the clarification.GreenJoe16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Apollo 8
My point on fact-tagging that Apollo 8 was planned and launched in 4 months is that the sentence, standing alone, makes it sound like someone had the bright idea of the missing, and then the rockets, capsule, astronaut training, everything occurred in 4 months. Could you come up with some more precise phrasing about the 4 month time frame? Thanks - Tempshill00:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Expo 67 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 2 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Sorry about the length of time it has taken to get to this review. We have quite a backlog :) PurseyTalk |Contribs02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
: Hey there. I've partially completed this review, but just had a long 12 hour day. So, your review should be up a few hours after I have a snooze tonight. I'd say around 12 hours from now. Cheers, thanks for patience. PurseyTalk | Contribs08:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
You were right to remove the John Tory prediction from the article, but it doesn't constitute vandalism, and looking at the article history I don't see any notable surge in the kind of edits that would necessitate page protection. I'll keep an eye on it over the next few days (obviously), but it's not at protection stage yet. Bearcat07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)
We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.
This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page
New irc channel
Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate sectionhere. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot15:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .
Wikimania 2009
TorontoCandidate City for Wikimania 2009
Support TORONTO in its bid to become the host city of WIKIMANIA 2009 Visit m:Wikimania 2009/Toronto for TORONTO's MetaWiki page and help build a strong bid.
Apollo 8 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Papa November (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Lower Bay pictures
The Photographer's Barnstar
Thanks for taking Lower Bay Station pictures during Doors Open Toronto 2007. Without your contributions, people could only imagine how the station looks like. OhanaUnitedTalk page08:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Make_this_your_canada_lr.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Make_this_your_canada_lr.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is noexplanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates atWikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want toopt out of receiving this notice? MECU≈talk18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Make this your canada lr.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Make this your canada lr.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriatecopyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Image copyright problem with File:5 Star Silver Dart Centenary 2009 222.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:5 Star Silver Dart Centenary 2009 222.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriatecopyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
If the image is public domain, that's fine- use it all you like. The image was tagged as non-free, and the usage did not meet our non-free content criteria. Obviously, the point is moot if the image is free. Thanks for dealing with this. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi
It's current, it's biography, what do you think about it: George Miok? I put a wikiProject Canada template onto the talp page of this article. I try to protect this article from the deletion. --Eino81 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
On the talk page there is already two supporting messages. I live in Hungary, every day I watch the net for news about the situation in Canada about Mr. Miok. I hope, at the end the article won't be deleted. I will do my best. --Eino81 (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There is now 4 supporting and three un-supporting vote, we need your help, if you support us :) did you see the video link, which I sent to you here? --Eino81 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The page, where the video is, yes, it's a Canadian-Hungarian page, but the video is originally from Duna TV, which is Hungarian. Thank oyu for your support. --Eino81 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the message you left on my talk page. In the past week, sockpuppets of GayleNuffer have attacked various articles inCategory:People who have walked on the Moon via four different IP addresses. Since WP:RBI does not seem to be doing the trick, I opted use the protect button to instead give Gayle the opportunity to get bored and move on to something else. Please let me know if you have any other questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I reversed your last edit of this article as not being vandalism. Although it perhaps is "vote" stacking, I do not believe it can be classified as vandalism. I have added an {{SPA}} tag to the entry to help identify there is an issue with the "vote". My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if Kennedy could mount a credible campaign for mayor right now. The perception that as Stéphane Dion's kingmaker he bears some of the blame for 2008 has, fairly or not, somewhat dented his reputation; outside of PHP, in truth, too many people would spend the entire campaign looking askance at his political judgment. And the fact that Iggy's been keeping him on the backbench has been denying him the opportunity to keep his name and face in the news nearly as much as George's name and face have been. But at any rate, we certainly shouldn't say anything about it here in the absence of any reliable media sources.
The article is definitely going to need manageability improvements of some kind soon. I haven't given much thought to it, though — my involvement recently has been mainly about the whole Mark State thing. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Good enough a reason for me. And you're right it was a good photo - I have the photographer (Tsar Kasim) on my Flickr contact list as he frequently gets photos of notable people and he uses Wiki-friendly licensing. <G> Tabercil (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Lewis peer review
Hi - I see you've listed it for peer review, which is great; I've watchlisted the peer review page, and I'll try to assist with any issues that come up. Only thing is that you need to replace the ellipses on that page (in "I've listed this article for peer review because…") with some explanation of what you're looking for. If you're not sure what to write, just say that you're looking to bring it to FAC, and that there were concerns with the writing last time it was there. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of sources at Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations
HI Abebenjoe - I've partially reverted your revert of my edits - I think you should have just rolled back the last edit - I think that I went to the point you meant but just undo if you disagree - Peripitus(Talk)04:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed that you reverted my edit to this article, but I'm a little confused as to where I went wrong. I thought following wikipedia policy was the correct way to edit an article.
WP:CREDENTIAL states "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line (although they may occasionally be used in articles of which the person with the degree is not the subject to clarify their qualifications)."
WP:MOSBIO states "After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms".
I'm hoping you can shed some light on this for me. I have edited hundreds of articles using the same policy, so I guess every edit I have made to a biography has been wrong. What I don't understand is why none of those articles were ever reverted, or why it was never pointed out to me until now. If you can explain where I went wrong, it will be greatly appreciated. Cmr08 (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well it's quite easy to point out where you are wrong. The correct Wikipedia rule that governs this rule of style is WP:INITIAL. That's why his post-nominal stays and should not be excluded. As for your second edit, you will find in most FA articles, which is the test of well written article on Wikipedia, that it is quite common to see, at some point, the use of the person's first and last name together in other parts of the article, not just in the intro paragraph. The operative word in the WP:SURNAME rule is should, not must, therefore it does not fully rule-out the use of first and last name in the article, after the initial usage.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me and for explaining the policy for me. I never would have removed the accademic degrees from the post nominal inititals had I known they should be included. I don't know what confused me about this, but I was under the impression that accademic degrees were not included in the post nominal initials after a name in the lead, but that they could be discussed in the article and listed after a name in an infobox. This was how I had seen other editors deal with them, and reading the policy I had cited in my original post is where the misunderstanding came from. But, if can you tell me with 100% certainty that accademic degrees are supposed to be listed in the lead sentence post nominals, then I have screwed up big time because everytime I came across an article where they were listed, I removed them and cited the wrong policy, WP:CREDENTIAL as the reason for the removal. I know you're probably busy with your own editing, but any help you can provide to help rectify the problem would be appreciated. Once again, thank you. Cmr08 (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Voskhod 2 edit war
Why do you keep reverting this edit? "Too much information was removed" doesn't make any sense; it can only possibly refer to the phrase "launched by the Soviet Union". This is clear from the context of the section about Voskhod; there is no way anyone is going to be confused and think the US launched this flight, also given the context of this period in history, long before astronauts/cosmonauts were launched on other countries' spacecraft. Also, my edit makes it consistent with the previous paragraph about Voskhod 1, which does not say "launched by the Soviet Union" either.
First off, this article is poorly constructed, and it is easy to get confused with it, so it is not just this section. I just rewrote some of this section to make it clearer, but in reality, this whole article needs a massive rewrite, including inline citations, which this section, and the whole article for that matter, is sorely lacking.Abebenjoe (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you toreview other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism orBLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (seeWikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be foundhere.
At the July 1950 National CCF Convention, Percy Wright, an MP from Saskatchewan, was elected National Chairman to replace the retiring F.R. Scott. He defeated Angus MacInnis (Woodsworth's son-in-law). M.J. Coldwell was re-elected as Party President. David Lewis was elected english-speaking Vice President, while Ms. Therese Casgrain was elected as french-speaking Vice President. Toronto Star (1950-07-29), pp. 1,7. M.J. Coldwell was likely president until 1958, when Lewis was elected to that position -- Coldwell was defeated in the 1958 Canadian Federal election, known as the "Diefenbaker Sweep" and only stayed on as the National Leader at the request of people like Lewis, Scott, MacInnis, Grube, etc.... I don't think Percy Wright was the National Chairman for the entire time between 1950 to 1958, but I'll research that a little more.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Space Race revision(s)
Hi:
I was looking over the major revisions that you made today on the Space Race article, and although in some cases they improved some aspects of the article, they also introduced new errors, both factually and stylistically. I suggest that this major rewrite be done in an user sandbox page, likeUser:Abebenjoe/Sandbox2, where the article can be fine-tuned and then migrated to the main article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Abebenjoe:
Please, be specific and give concrete examples; as the (self-appointed) article owner, you are obliged. Your style of editing is your business . . . or do I require your permission to participate in correcting the right-wards tilt narrative of a "done deal". Example: “When the Russians effected the first space walk . . . that was okay, but the Americans did it better” . . . is not objective . . . gosh . . . What might I say?
I am an ex-US Army officer (Infantry) and am risibly impressed at how you Cold War REMF jokers are tougher than men of arms, especially here, in Wikipedia . . . where such “toughness” results in flagged articles on account of right-wing bias. The USSR is dead (not Russia), so nil nisil bonum.
I refer to your Voskhod 2 article quarrel with an editor who sought to identify the USSR as launching it, but, rather than address his matter . . . you copped out and dismissed the entire article . . . just to disregard him . . . oh boy! You are one (intellectually) tough guy . . . yet . . . you WEASELED out from answering a direct EDITORIAL question . . . Why, sir? Was that other editor factually wrong?
Again, the morally outraged tone betrays you. Schadenfreude, perhaps, the spirit of the sore winner? Friend, return to Earth, set your feet on the ground, take off your work boots, set a spell . . . Hell, even the astronauts respected the cosmonauts . . . um . . . possibly because they were military men, intellectually secure, and thus unafraid of . . . the Other (?). Let me know, if you are able to be objective: the won some, we won some, they lost some, so did we. Just report, do not interpret, because the facts do not support your RAH-RAH-RAH misrepresentations.
You are misrepresenting the historical facts when the introduction states that the space race began and ended; yet in your Disney conclusion the space race never really ended . . . oh . . . which is it? It occurred or it is occurring? Please, provide the facts that support your self-contradiction. Dude! It is a done deal, It happened, and not as you misrepresent it. Meantime, I shall continue contributing FACTS, I defer opinion to you.
I was away on vacation and just noticed your reply. I'm an ex-Canadian Armed Forces infantry soldier as well, involved in the last years of the Cold War, but being in the American or Canadian armed forces doesn't mean much to this article. Anyway, I didn't write this article, and I find it has huge stylistic and content problems, but your edits just made them worse. As I said, I've written or helped write a few FA articles, and will fix this one up shortly, as I do know the subject matter, and know how to properly cite works, and write from a neutral point of view, which is the basis of an FA article anyway.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The prose you have introduced into the "Space Race" article is a problem in that it requires considerable clean-up to be readable. There are many sentence structure errors and run-on sentences, in addition to poor punctuation. I wonder if you might please consider spending a bit more time before you introduce your edits so they won't require so much cleanup. Thanks.Apostle12 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. I do have one concern about an edit that you reverted. The reverted version reads "Had von Braun's team been allowed to orbit, the Space Race would have been over before it started." I think this needs to be restated for a couple of reasons: 1./ Taken literally, the sentence means that the team itself wasn't allowed to orbit (as in the team orbiting the earth). I know that the intent here is to say "Had von Braun's team been allowed to launch a satellite into orbit..." Even so, I think the sentence needs to contain a specific date, since von Braun's team WAS eventually allowed to launch a satellite into orbit. 2./ When you write "...the Space Race would have been over before it started," that doesn't sound right to me. After all, the article itself pegs the beginning of the Space Race to 1955, so it HAD already started. Also, Von Braun's early launching of a satellite would hardly have signalled the "end" of the Space Race, rather it would have been a significant coup for the United States, just as the launching of Sputnik ended up being a coup for the Soviet Union. My edit wasn't very good either, however it was date specific and it defined what specifically an early Von Braun launch would have accomplished. Anyway, I think this needs work! Apostle12 (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's try to figure this one out. If von Braun and the ABMA team orbited a satellite in September 1956, the USA would not have felt the need to further compete with the Soviets. The biggest favour the Soviets ever did to the American space program was to beat them, not once, but twice to two important firsts: first artificial satellite, and then the first human in space. If the Americans orbited the first satellite, Korolyov would not have had a leg to stand on, sort of speak, with Mr. K., because the R-7 was almost a year away from its first successful launch. If anything, Yangel would have gained favour, and Alan Shepard likely would have been the first person in space, and the first moon-landing likely would have occurred in the 1980s or even 1990s. The project Apollo that occurred in the 1960s, could not have happened without the public humiliation the United States endured due to Sputnik 1 and Vostok 1. That's why the Space Race would have been over before it began. Also, again contextualizing this with the times, most Westerners didn't consider the Russians to be able to build a proper refrigerator, let alone launch an Earth orbiting satellite when they announced their intentions in 1955. The Americans did not know that Korolyov existed, for if they did, von Braun would have been allowed to have launched a satellite as soon as he could. That's why both his failure to orbit a satellite is crucial, just at Korolyov's ability to manipulate the Soviet system in the late summer of 1955 was so crucial for The Race to actually occur. As you can probably infer, the R-7 was a terrible military rocket, due to the extremely long time it took to prepare it for launch, especially if combat conditions were considered, but it was a superb space launcher, arguably the first and best that has ever existed, as Korolyov intended. So the question remains, how do we project the sense that if von Braun did not launch a rocket into orbit in 1956, that, in effect, the Americans would not have taken the Soviets seriously, because they only did it after them? It is highly unlikely the United States would have put 5% of its annual 1960s budget towards the space program if they were already leading, in some way.Abebenjoe (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Paul Ferreira lo-rez.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --ARTEST4ECHO(talk|contribs)20:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Spaceflight portals
Hello! As an member editor of one or more of the Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight or Space colonisation WikiProjects, I'd like to draw to your attention a proposal I have made with regards to the future of the spaceflight-related portals, which can be found at Portal talk:Spaceflight#Portal merge. I'd very much appreciate any suggestions or feedback you'd be able to offer! Many thanks,
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, I have made some changes to the list of members of WikiProject Human spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, I would be grateful if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the critical mass of editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the space-related WikiProjects, some changes have been made to the lists of members of WikiProject Moon (here) and Mars (here). If you still consider yourself to be an active editor either of these projects, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello there! As part of an effort to determine how many active editors are present in the spaceflight-related WikiProjects, changes have been made to the list of members of WikiProject Spaceflight. If you still consider yourself to be an active editor in this project, it would be appreciated if you would please edit the list so that your name is not struck out - thus a clearer idea of the number of active editors can be determined. Many thanks in advance!
Hello there! As you may or may not be aware, a recent discussion on the future of the Space-related WikiProjects has concluded, leading to the abolition of WP:SPACE and leading to a major reorganisation ofWP:SPACEFLIGHT. It would be much appreciated if you would like to participate in the various ongoing discussions at the reorganisation page and the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. If you are a member of one of WP:SPACEFLIGHT's child projects but not WP:SPACEFLIGHT itself, it would also be very useful if you could please add your name to the member list here. Many thanks!
Welcome to The Downlink · Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects · User Activity Checks
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Future issues will contain information on issues under discussion, newly featured content, and articles written by members of the project to appear in the newsletter. All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter. If you were not aware of being a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, membership of the former Human spaceflight, Unmanned spaceflight, Timeline of spaceflight and Space colonization WikiProjects was merged into WikiProject spaceflight during the reorganisation of the spaceflight projects, for more details, please see below.
Reorganisation of Space WikiProjects
The ongoing discussion of the future of Space WikiProjects has been making progress. WikiProject Space was abolished on 5 December 2010, with the Spaceflight, Astronomy and Solar System projects becoming independent of each other. On the same day, an assessment banner, {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} was created for WikiProject Spaceflight to replace the generic space one which had been used previously. On 9 December, WikiProject Space Colonization was abolished, with its tasks being subsumed into WikiProject Spaceflight. On 12 December, the Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight WikiProjects became task forces of WikiProject Spaceflight, whilst WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight became a working group.
A number of issues are still under discussion:
Introducing better defined assessment criteria and an A-class review process
Setting clearer importance criteria for assessing articles
Establishing a joint task force with the Astronomy and Solar System projects to cover space telescopes and planetary probes
Defining the roles of projects, taskforces and working groups, and processes for establishing new ones
A series of checks are underway to establish the numbers of users who are still active within WikiProject Spaceflight, its task forces and working group. All usernames on the members lists were struck out, and members were asked to unstrike their own names if they were still an active member of the project. If you wish to do so, and have not already, please unstrike your name from the master list, plus the lists on any applicable task forces or working groups
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to theopt-out list.
Welcome to The Downlink·Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics·Salyut 2
Welcome to The Downlink
Welcome to the first full issue of The Downlink, a new monthly newsletter intended to inform members of WikiProject Spaceflight about the latest developments in the project and its articles. Below you will find information about happenings within the project, our recognised content, spaceflight in the news and events needing to be covered in articles. You will also find an editorial about the first concerted effort to develop featured topics related to spaceflight, and an article in need of your help and improvements.
Project News will provide details of discussions about and changes in the organisation and structure of the project, newly recognised content, and changes in membership. News from Orbit will summarise spaceflight news and upcoming events, and list suggestions for articles in need of updating as a result. Article News will give details of requests for assistance within articles, and discussions regarding content.
All members of WikiProject Spaceflight are invited to contribute any content that they would like to see in the newsletter, and we would particularly welcome the submission of editorials, or an article about an area of spaceflight which you are working on, or particularly interested in. Please see The Downlink page for more details.
Discussion within the project is still dominated by the reorganisation proposals. A discussion over the formation and roles of working groups and task forces has led to some clarification regarding working groups, however the roles of the task forces remain vague, and several proposals to abolish them have surfaced. The Human Spaceflight to-do list has been merged into the main project to-do list, with the combined list currently located on the Tasks page of the Spaceflight portal.
New assessment criteria for importance and quality have been implemented, and refinements continue to be made to the importance scale. The scope of the project was redefined to exclude astronomical objects explicitly. Although A-class criteria have been defined, a review process is yet to be discussed or implemented.
Colds7ream conducted an analysis of open tasks related to the reorganisation which four major issues remain unresolved: Discussion concerning the existence and roles of task forces within the project; recruitment of new editors; updating guidelines and whether the project or the task forces should be responsible for maintaining them; and the continued existence of the Human spaceflight portal six weeks after consensus was reached to abolish it.
Discussion about the structure of the project is ongoing, with several proposals currently on the table. One proposal calls for the abolition of task forces in favour of increased emphasis on working groups, whilst another calls for the task forces to become a list of topics. The idea of a formal collaboration system has been suggested, however opposition has been raised.
One of the main open tasks at the moment is replacing the older {{WikiProject Space}} and {{WikiProject Human spaceflight}} banners with the new {{WikiProject Spaceflight}} banner. Articles which need to be retagged are currently listed in Category:WikiProject Spaceflight articles using deprecated project tags. ChiZeroOne is doing a very good job replacing them, but as of the morning of 31 December, there are still 1,424 left to be converted. Additionally, the implementation of a new B-class checklist built into the template has necessitated the reassessment of former B-class articles, which the template has automatically classified as C-class.
News from Orbit
On 3 December, USA-212, the first X-37B, landed at Vandenberg Air Force Base after a successful mission. On 5 December Proton-M with a Blok DM-03 upper stage failed to place three Glonass-M satellites into orbit, the first of three failures in less than forty eight hours. The NanoSail-D2 spacecraft was supposed to have been ejected from FASTSAT in the early hours of the next morning, however it does not appear to have separated. Finally the Akatsuki spacecraft failed to enter orbit around Venus in the evening of 6 December. The Proton launch was the maiden flight of the Blok DM-03, which does not currently have an article.
On 8 December the Dragon C1 demonstration mission was conducted, with the SpaceX Dragon making a little under two orbits of the Earth on its maiden flight, before landing in the Pacific Ocean to complete a successful mission. The Falcon 9 rocket which launched the Dragon spacecraft also deployed eight CubeSats: SMDC-ONE 1, QbX-1, QbX-2, Perseus 000, Perseus 001, Perseus 002, Perseus 003 and Mayflower. The CubeSats do not currently have articles.
On 15 December, a Soyuz-FG launched Soyuz TMA-20 to the International Space Station, carrying three members of the Expedition 26 crew. It docked two days later. The Soyuz TMA-20 article is currently short, and could use improvements to bring it up to the same level as articles for US manned spaceflights. On 17 December, a Long March 3A launched Compass-IGSO2. There is currently no article for this satellite.
17 December saw Intelsat regain control of the Galaxy 15 satellite, which had been out of control since a malfunction in April. The Galaxy 15 article is in need of serious cleanup and a good copyedit. On 25 December a GSLV Mk.I failed to place GSAT-5P into orbit. A Proton-M with a Briz-M upper stage successfully launched KA-SAT on 26 December. Barring any suborbital launches at the end of the month which have not yet been announced (a NASA Black Brant was scheduled for December but does not appear to have flown), 2010 in spaceflight concluded on 29 December when an Ariane 5ECA launched the Hispasat-1E and Koreasat 6 spacecraft. These do not currently have articles.
Four launches are currently scheduled to occur in January 2011. A Delta IV Heavy is expected to launch NRO L-49 on 17 January. The satellite is expected to be an Improved Crystal electro-optical imaging spacecraft. Two launches are planned for 20 January, with Kounotori 2, the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, being launched by an H-IIB, and the Zenit-3F making its maiden flight to deploy Elektro-L No.1, the first Russian geostationary weather satellite to be launched since 1994. On 28 January Progress M-09M will be launched by a Soyuz-U. 28 January will also be the twenty-fifth anniversary of the loss of the Space ShuttleChallenger on mission STS-51-L.
Article News
It was requested that the article Walter Haeussermann be expanded. Haeussermann, a member of the von Braun rocket group, died on 8 December. Although the article has been updated following his death, a user requested that more information about the engineer be added. Another user requested that the articles Commercial Space Launch Act and Launch Services Purchase Act be created, to cover laws of the United States concerning spaceflight.
Articles related to methods of taking-off and landing were discussed. The term VTVL currently has an article whilst VTHL and HTHL do not. It was suggested that the existing article should be merged, and each term be covered by the article for the equivalent aviation term, however some distinction between use in the fields of aviation and spaceflight should remain.
Concern was raised that a large scale deletion request could cause many images to be lost from articles, help was requested to investigate whether any of the images were not subject to copyright, or if they were then whether they could be uploaded to the English Wikipedia under a claim of fair use.
Concerns were raised about a large amount of content in the newly-created article deorbit of Mir duplicating existing content in existing Good Article Progress M1-5. A proposal to merge deorbit of Mir into Progress M1-5 was made, however objections were raised, and discussion has since stalled without reaching a consensus. It has also been requested that the article Mir be copyedited.
The existence of separate categories for "spaceflight" and "space exploration" has been questioned, with a suggestion that some of the exploration categories, including Category:Space exploration iteslf, should be merged into their spaceflight counterparts.
Editorial – Space Stations and the Push for Featured Topics
There has recently been much talk about trying to increase the activity of the project. To this end, a major reorganisation effort has been undertaken, which has seen the space WikiProjects separated into the Astronomy, Solar System and Spaceflight groups, with WikiProject Space being abolished. We have also seen the child projects of WikiProject Spaceflight being abolished, with Timeline of Spaceflight becoming a working group, and the Unmanned and Human Spaceflight projects becoming task forces for now, with some suggestions that they should be abolished outright. The problem with the previous structure was that there were too many different groups of editors, and nobody was sure which projects were supposed to be doing what. Now there is only one project, this is somewhat clearer, but spaceflight is still a huge topic.
Another way to improve the activity of the project is to attract more editors. Spaceflight is a topic which many people have at least a very casual interest in, and therefore it is strange that there are only about four or five people regularly participating in discussions on the project talk page. Evidently action is needed to raise the profile of the project.
One way in which the project's profile can be raised is to have a major success associated with it. The creation of a featured topic could be one such success, and would also be hugely beneficial to articles in the area that it relates to. Space Stations are one of the most high-profile and notable areas of spaceflight, and are therefore a logical choice to spearhead such an initiative.
To this end, in late December a working group was established to concentrate and coordinate efforts to establish featured topics related to space stations. An initial proposal calls for topics on Skylab, Salyut, Mir and the International Space Station, as well as one on space stations in general. There is currently an effort to get Mir promoted to Good Article status; the article currently requires a copyedit, after which it will be sent for peer review and then to GAN.
This is by no means a short-term project. There are many articles, particularly for the larger space stations such as the ISS and Mir, which are currently nowhere near becoming recognised content. Skylab is the smallest of the proposed featured topics, but it still requires that three C-class articles, two Start-class articles and a redirect all reach at least Good Article status, with at least three becoming Featured Articles. The ISS topic is so large that it may have to be subdivided.
I don't expect that we will have any featured topics by the end of the year, but I believe that a Good Topic, which requires all articles reach at least GA status, but does not require any featured articles, may be possible. I also believe that several articles on the subject can easily be improved to Good Article status, and some articles may be at featured level by the end of the year. In the long term, having featured topics will benefit the project and its content.
Selected Article – Salyut 2
Salyut 2 was an early space station, launched in 1973 as part of the Salyut and Almaz programmes. It malfunctioned two days after launch, and consequently was never visited by a manned Soyuz mission.
The Salyut 2 article describes the station:
“
Salyut 2 (OPS-1)(Russian: Салют-2; English: Salute 2) was launched April 4, 1973. It was not really a part of the same program as the other Salyutspace stations, instead being the highly classified prototype military space station Almaz. It was given the designation Salyut 2 to conceal its true nature. Despite its successful launch, within two days the as-yet-unmanned Salyut 2 began losing pressure and its flight control failed; the cause of the failure was likely due to shrapnel piercing the station when the discarded Proton rocket upper stage that had placed it in orbit later exploded nearby. On April 11, 1973, 11 days after launch, an unexplainable accident caused the two large solar panels to be torn loose from the space station cutting off all power to the space station. Salyut 2 re-entered on May 28, 1973.
”
The article is currently assessed as start class, and is in need of attention. It consists of the above paragraph, along with a list of specifications and an infobox. The article needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopaedic style, and with more information about the space station. It has not yet been determined whether Salyut 2 would have to be included in a featured topic about the Salyut programme, or whether since it was never manned it is less integral to the topic, however if its inclusion were necessary then in its current form it would be a major impediment to this. Downlink readers are encouraged to improve this article, with a view to getting it to B-class and possibly a viable Good Article candidate by the end of the month.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to theopt-out list.
Please don't violate the decision of a move discussion, if you have opinions, start a move discussion, so that it can be discussed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
-
If you wrote the articles, you should have been involved in the move discussion, where it was decided that despite what the parties call them, there needs to be consistency across all parties.117Avenue (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
-
Yes there was consensus, to move it to election. It says right at the top of the discussion: "The result of the move request was: Move to leadership election. Consensus seems to be that "election" is encyclopedic, clear, unambiguous, consistent with other articles. Concern was expressed that "election" might be interpreted as implying something about the franchise of the electorate, but this seems a minority view. Discussion on "common usage" was more evenly split but other factors outweigh this. Further other proposed terms either suffered some serious drawback (a convention is not an election, just something that often goes with one, "contest" and "race" are possibly more nebulous, and would not apply to an uncontested election). Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)." If you move any pages involved in the discussion, you will be seen as violating the decision, and will be reported. 117Avenue (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Project News·News from Orbit·Article News·The Charts·Yuri Gagarin
Project News
A report on popular pages from December 2010 revealed surprising trends in readers' interests. Boeing X-37 was the most popular article within the project's scope, with SpaceX Dragon in second with Global Positioning System in third place. The top seven articles were all assessed as C-class, with the remainder of the top ten being Good Articles. It was noted with some concern that moon landing conspiracy theories was more popular than moon landing.
A discussion regarding whether missiles warranted inclusion within the project scope was conducted, and resulted in the continued inclusion of missiles.
The last remaining articles tagged with the banner of the former Human Spaceflight WikiProject were re-tagged with the WikiProject Spaceflight banner. The last banner was removed on 8 January, and the template has since been deleted. The project is thankful to ChiZeroOne for his work in this field.
Concerns were raised that the new article reporting system was not working correctly, however it was noted that there is sometimes a delay before articles appear on the list.
Discussion regarding the existence of the separate spaceflight and space exploration category structures led to a mass CfD being filed on 10 January to abolish the space exploration categories, merging them into their counterparts in the spaceflight category structure. This was successful, and the exploration categories have been removed. Several other categorisation issues remain unresolved.
A proposal was made to standardise some of the infoboxes used by the project, the future of Template:Infobox spacecraft(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was discussed, and design work began on a replacement. Template:Rocket specifications-all(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was nominated for deletion and subsequently kept due to extant substitutions, however it was noted that the template had been deprecated by WikiProject Rocketry. Concerns were also raised that the existing infoboxes were not well-equipped to handle spacecraft which operated in more than one orbit, or whose orbits changed over the course of their missions (which in practise is most of them).
Five members of the project gave interviews for the Wikipedia Signpost, and a report on the project, authored by SMasters (talk·contribs), is expected to be published in the 7 February edition of the Signpost. It is hoped that this will raise interest in and awareness of the project.
News from orbit
Four orbital launches were conducted in January, beginning on 20 January with the launch of Elektro-L No.1 on the first Zenit-3F rocket. This was followed later the same day by the launch of a Delta IV Heavy with the USA-224 reconnaissance satellite. The articles for USA-224 and the Zenit-3F rocket could use some expansion, whilst the Elektro-L No.1 satellite needs its own article.
On 22 January, an H-IIB launched the second H-II Transfer Vehicle, Kounotori 2, to resupply the International Space Station. It arrived at the station on 27 January. Less than a day after its arrival, another cargo mission was launched to the station; Progress M-09M departed Baikonur early in the morning of 28 January, docking on 30 January. In addition to payloads to resupply the station, the Progress spacecraft is carrying a small subsatellite, Kedr, which will be deployed in February. Kedr does not currently have an article. Progress M-08M departed on 24 January to make the Pirs module available for Progress M-09M, and has since reentered the atmosphere. Its article needs to be updated to reflect the successful completion of its mission.
The NanoSail-D2 satellite, which failed to deploy from FASTSAT in December, unexpectedly separated from its parent craft and began operations on 18 January, with its solar sail deploying on 21 January.
Nine orbital launches are scheduled to occur in February, beginning with the launch of the first Geo-IK-2 satellite; Geo-IK-2 No.11, atop a Rokot/Briz-KM, on the first day of the month. Articles need to be written for the Geo-IK-2 series of satellites, as well as for Geo-IK-2 No.11 itself, and the Briz-KM upper stage that will be used to insert it into orbit.
A Minotaur I rocket will launch NRO L-66, a classified payload for the US National Reconnaissance Office, on 5 February. The payload has not yet been identified, however once more details are known, it will need an article. Iran is expected to launch the Rasad 1 and Fajr 1 satellites in February, with 14 February the reported launch date. The satellites will fly aboard a single rocket; either the first Simorgh or the third Safir. Once this launch occurs, the satellites will need articles, and the article on their carrier rocket will require updating.
The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, is scheduled to launch on 15 February to resupply the ISS. Docking is expected to occur on 23 February. 23 February will also see the much-delayed launch of Glory atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. This will be the first Taurus launch since the launch failure in early 2009 which resulted in the loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. In addition to Glory, three CubeSats will be deployed; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [PRIME]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated.
On 24 February, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket will launch the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11. Articles are needed for the series of spacecraft, as well as for the specific satellite being launched. It is likely that a Kosmos designation will be given to the payload when it reaches orbit. In the evening of 24 February, Space ShuttleDiscovery will begin its final mission, STS-133, carrying the Permanent Multipurpose Module, a conversion of the Leonardo MPLM, to the ISS. Other payloads include an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, and the Robonaut2 experimental robot. The first manned mission of 2011, Discovery's six-man crew will transfer equipment to the station, and two EVAs will be performed. The launch has already been scrubbed five times, before Discovery was rolled back to the Vehicle Assembly Building to inspect and repair cracks on its External Tank.
At some point in February, a Long March 3B rocket is expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, as part of the Compass navigation system. The date of this launch is currently unknown. Both satellites will require articles once more information is available. A PSLV launch, carrying the Resourcesat-2, X-Sat and YouthSat spacecraft, is expected to launch from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre towards the end of the month, probably between 20 and 23 February.
Stop press: The Rokot launch was conducted at 14:00 UTC on 1 February, and at the time of writing it appears to have ended in failure, due to a suspected upper stage malfunction. The spacecraft is in orbit, it is not clear at the time of writing whether it will be salvageable.
Following up on the issues covered in the last issue, the requested move of Missile Range Instrumentation Ship to Tracking ship was successful, with the article being renamed. The discussion concerning types of launch and landing resulted in a proposal to merge VTVL into VTOL, however this has been met with some opposition. Several other options have been suggested on Talk:VTVL. The large scale deletion of mis-tagged Soviet images on Commons went ahead, with most of the useful ones having already been backed-up locally under fair use criteria.
Discussion was held regarding the naming of spaceflight-related articles. Concerns were raised regarding inconsistency in article titles and disambiguators. A project guideline was adopted to standardise titles, with the parenthesised disambiguators "(satellite)" and "(spacecraft)" being adopted as standards for spacecraft, and the exclusion of manufacturers' names from article titles was recommended. Issues regarding Japanese spacecraft with two names, the correct names for early Apollo missions, and dealing with acronyms and abbreviated names remain unresolved.
A large number of articles were moved to conform to the standard disambiguation pattern. In addition, several Requested Moves were debated. A proposal to move SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft), which began prior to the adoption of the standardised disambiguators, was successful. Atmospheric reentry was subject to two requested moves, firstly one which would have seen it renamed spacecraft atmospheric reentry, which was unsuccessful, however a second proposal shortly afterwards saw it moved to atmospheric entry. A proposal currently under discussion could see Lunar rover (Apollo) renamed Lunar Roving Vehicle
Help was requested for adding citations to List of Mir spacewalks. A request was made that STS-88 be reviewed against the B class criteria, and suggestions for improvements made. Another user requested improvements to the article Yuri Gagarin, with a view to having the article promoted to featured status in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his Vostok 1 mission. As a result of this request, Yuri Gagarin is this month's selected article.
Questions were raised as to whether an article or category should be created to cover derelict satellites. The categorisation of spacecraft by the type of rocket used to place them into orbit was also suggested. In another categorisation issue, it was questioned whether Space law should fall under space or spaceflight.
There is no editorial this month as no content was submitted for one. Instead, we present the "top ten" most popular articles within the project, based on the number of page views in January. Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was the most popular article of the last month, up fourteen places from 15th in December. Space Shuttle Challenger was the highest climber in the top 40, up 42 places from 50th. December's most popular article. Boeing X-37, dropped 57 places to 58th. On a happier note further down the chart, moon landing is now ahead of moon landing conspiracy theories.
Yuri Gagarin was the first man to fly in space, aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961. He was subsequently awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union, and was training for a second flight at the time of his death in 1968.
His article describes him and his spaceflight experience:
On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first man to travel into space, launching to orbit aboard the Vostok 3KA-3 (Vostok 1). His call sign in this flight was Kedr (Cedar; Russian: Кедр). During his flight, Gagarin famously whistled the tune "The Motherland Hears, The Motherland Knows" (Russian: "Родина слышит, Родина знает"). The first two lines of the song are: "The Motherland hears, the Motherland knows/Where her son flies in the sky". This patriotic song was written by Dmitri Shostakovich in 1951 (opus 86), with words by Yevgeniy Dolmatovsky.
”
The article is currently assessed as C class, and had been assessed as B class prior to the criteria being redefined. Although a full reassessment has not yet been made, it seems close to the B class criteria, however details on his spaceflight experiences are somewhat lacking. It has been requested that the article be developed to Featured status by April, in time for the fiftieth anniversary of his mission.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to theopt-out list.
Hello Abebenjoe, nice meeting you here. I have been wondering if adding names who actually attended that meeting would be an invasion of privacy. Obviously there are a few people who signed up but did not attend. What's your idea ? Thanks. I just went ahead adding a few names. --Ktsquare(talk)05:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There have been very few discussions relating to the administration of the project in the last month, as things start to settle down after the merger.
An invitation template has been created in an effort to attract new users to the project. Discussion was also held regarding the creation of a list of common templates, however no conclusions were reached. A proposal was made to implement an A-class assessment process, however editors are undecided about whether it would be best to copy the system used by another project such as WP:MILHIST, or to develop one specifically for the requirements of this project.
User:ChiZeroOne has set up a collaboration page in his userspace, initially focussing on articles related to Skylab. Collaboration pages were at one point proposed as part of the structure of the Spaceflight project itself, however no consensus was achieved on the issue. If this collaboration is successful, it could open the door to a reevaluation of that situation.
News from orbit
Five orbital launches were conducted in February, out of nine planned. The first, that of the Geo-IK-2 No.11 satellite atop a Rokot/Briz-KM ended in failure after the upper stage malfunctioned. The Rokot has since been grounded pending a full investigation; the satellite is in orbit, but has been determined to be unusable for its intended mission. A replacement is expected to launch within the year. A general article on Geo-IK-2 satellites is needed, to supplement those on the individual satellites.
A Minotaur I rocket launched USA-225, or NROL-66, on 6 February following a one-day delay. The second Automated Transfer Vehicle, Johannes Kepler, was successfully launched on 16 February to resupply the ISS. Docking occurred successfully on 24 February, several hours before Space ShuttleDiscovery launched on its final flight, STS-133. Discovery docked with the ISS on 26 February, delivering the Leonardo module and an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier to the station. Following several delays, a Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat rocket launched the first Glonass-K1 satellite; Glonass-K1 No.11, on 26 February. It is currently unclear as to whether the satellite has received a Kosmos designation or not.
Seven launches are expected to occur in March. On 4 March, the Glory satellite will launch atop a Taurus-XL 3110 rocket. Three CubeSats will be also be deployed by the Taurus; KySat-1, Hermes and Explorer-1 [Prime]. KySat and Hermes require articles, whilst the article on Explorer-1 [PRIME] needs to be updated. This launch was originally scheduled for February, but following a scrubbed launch attempt, it was delayed.
4 March will also see the launch of the first flight of the second X-37B, atop an Atlas V 501. An article is needed for that flight, which will probably receive a USA designation once it reaches orbit. On 8 March, Discovery is expected to land, bringing to an end the STS-133 mission, and retiring from service 27 years after its maiden flight. On 11 March, a Delta IV Medium+(4,2) will launch the NROL-27 payload. Whilst the identity of this payload is classified, it is widely believed to be a Satellite Data Systemcommunications satellite, bound for either a molniya or geostationary orbit. An article for this payload is required. 16 March will see the return to Earth of Soyuz TMA-01M, carrying three members of the ISS Expedition 26 crew.
On 31 March, a Proton-M/Briz-M launch will carry the SES-3 and Kazsat-2 spacecraft into orbit, in the first dual-launch of commercial communications satellites on a Proton. Several other launches may occur in March, however their status is unclear. Last month, a Long March 3B rocket was expected to launch two navigation satellites; Compass-M2 and Compass-M3, however this launch did not take place. It is unclear if it has been delayed to March, or further. The launch of the Tianlian 2 communications satellite on a Long March 3C may also be conducted in March, or possibly April. Both the Compass and Tianlian launches would occur from the same launch pad, which requires a turnaround of almost a month between launches, so it is unlikely that both will happen in March. A Safir launch, which had been expected in February, now appears to have been delayed to April, but given the secrecy of the Iranian space programme, this is unclear.
Article news
Discussion regarding the merger of articles on launch and landing modes seems to have stagnated, with no consensus being reached on any existing proposal. A discussion regarding changes in the sizes of Soviet and American rockets during the 1950s and early 1960s was conducted, with claims that rockets became smaller in that period being dismissed, however it was noted that smaller rockets were developed with equivalent capacity to older ones were developed, as well as much larger ones with increased capacities.
Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth was created as a result of discussion surrounding the categorisation of derelict satellites. Concerns have also been raised that satellites are being listed as no longer being in orbit whilst still in orbit and derelict, and a discussion was held on how their status could be verified. An effort to categorise spacecraft by the type of rocket used to launch them is underway, however the categorisation of satellites by country of launch was rejected.
It was reported that a sidebar has been created for articles related to the core concepts of spaceflight. Editors noted that it should only be used for core concepts, and not where it would conflict with an infobox. An anonymous user requested the creation of an article on moon trees. It was pointed out that the subject already had an article, and a redirect was created at the title proposed by the anonymous user.
Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the article Japan's space development. Editors noted that the article appeared to be a poorly-translated copy of an article from the Japanese Wikipedia, although there have been some signs of improvement. Discussion regarding moving the article to Japanese space program is ongoing, however a move request has not yet been filed.
A particular concern was raised regarding false claims in the article Van Allen radiation belt. In one case a scientist to whom one of the claims had been attributed was contacted, and clarified that he had made a remark to that effect as a joke in the 1960s, but was not entirely sure how or why it had been included in the article. Other concerns were raised before the discussion moved to WikiProject Astronomy.
A question was raised regarding the copyright status of images credited to both NASA and ESA, particularly with regard to images of the launch of the Johannes Kepler ATV. The discussion reached no general conclusions, however it was found that the specific images that were suggested for inclusion in the article could be used, since they were explicitly declared to be in the public domain.
A template, Template:Spaceflight landmarks(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), was created to cover landmarks in the United States that are related to spaceflight. Several sources of public-domain NASA images were also discussed, and it was noted that almost all NASA images are public domain, however there are some exceptions.
It has been proposed that Leonardo MPLM be merged with Permanent Multipurpose Module since the two cover separate uses of the same spacecraft. A review of the article STS-88 has also been requested.
Three new Good Articles have been listed: Mission: Earth, Voyage to the Home Planet, Bold Orion and SA-500D. Orion (spacecraft) was delisted after concerns that it contained out-of-date content. SA-500D is currently undergoing good article reassessment, using the community reassessment method, after the review of its good article nomination was criticised for being lenient and not sufficiently thorough. Mir, Mark E. Kelly and Reaction Engines Skylon have been nominated for Good Article status and are awaiting review, whilst List of Mir spacewalks is undergoing a peer review with a view to it becoming a featured list.
Editorial: Direction of the Project
Well folks, its now been more than three months since the discussion that reformed the space-related WikiProjects, and in that time we've had a number of achievements we can be rightly proud of; we've gathered members up to a total of 43, improved awareness of the project via an interview in the Signpost, and refreshed the spaceflight portal into an attractive, up-to-date and useful page. Meanwhile, User:ChiZeroOne has made a sterling effort in clearing up talk page templates belonging to prior projects, we've managed to sort out various policies, started work on rearranging our templates, and User:GW Simulations has begun this excellent monthly newsletter for us. However, there are a few areas of the project that seem to be passing by the wayside, specifically the areas dedicated to fostering collaboration on articles and article sets between the project members, so here I present a call for more collaboration on the project.
Presumably, the lack of collaboration is due to folks not being aware of what's going on, so here's a quick rundown of some of the ways you get involved in the group effort. Firstly, and most importantly, it'd be fantastic if more members got involved in the discussions ongoing at the project's main talk page, found at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. There are several discussions ongoing there, such as the relaunch of the spacecraft template, requests for assistance with various assessment and copyright queries, and conversations regarding category organisations, which affect many more articles, and thus editors, than are currently represented in the signatures so far.
Secondly, it was established earlier on in the project's formation that a great way to attract more editors would be to develop some good or featured topics. There are a couple of efforts ongoing to try to see this idea to fruition, such as the Space stations working group and ChiZeroOne's own collaboration page, currently focussed on Skylab-related articles. These pages, however, have been notably lacking in activity lately, which is a shame, as their aims, given enough editor input, would really see the project furthering itself. Similarly, there are a number of requests for assessment for articles to be promoted to GA class, among other things, on the Open tasks page, which lists all of the activities needing input from members. If everyone could add this page to their watchlists and swing by it regularly, we could power through the good topics in extremely short order! Other things that could do with being added to people's watchlists include Portal:Spaceflight/Next launch, the many templates at Template:Launching/Wrappers and the task list at Portal:Spaceflight/Tasks.
Finally, I'd like to try and get people involved in finally settling the organisational problem we have with reference to the task forces and working groups. Whilst the Timeline of spaceflight working group is a continuation of the old Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject and thus is ticking over nicely and the space stations working group has been mentioned previously in this editorial, the task forces (Human spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight) in particular are currently dead in the water. I'm unsure as to whether or not this is because people are unaware of their existence, they clash too much with one another and the rest of the project or because people don't see a need for them, but if interested parties could make themselves known and others voice suggestions for getting rid of them, we can decide either if they're worth keeping and get them running again, or do away with a layer of bureaucracy and close them down. Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated.
In summary, then, we've got a great project going here, with a nice set of articles, a good editor base and lots of ways of getting involved. Thus, a plea goes out to everyone to get involved, get editing with the other project members, and hopefully we'll see ourselves take off in a manner not dissimilar to the trajectory dear old Discovery took last week. Many thanks for everyone's hard work so far, and poyekhali! :-)
The Charts
Since it is useful to keep track of the most viewed pages within the project's scope, it seems like a good idea to continue this feature, which was originally included in last month's issue as a one-off.
Europa was a rocket developed by a multinational European programme in the 1960s. Consisting of British, French and German stages, it was intended to provide a European alternative to the US rockets used for the launch of most Western satellites to that date. Although the British Blue Streak first stage performed well on all flights, problems with the French and German stages, as well as the Italian-built payload fairing, resulted in the failure of all multistage test flights and orbital launch attempts. The programme was abandoned after the failure of the Europa II's maiden flight in 1971. The article Europa (rocket), describes it:
Tasks were to be distributed between nations: the United Kingdom would provide the first stage (derived from the Blue Streak missile), France would build the second and Germany the third stage.
The Europa programme was divided into 4 successive projects :
Europa 1: 4 unsuccessful launches
Europa 2: 1 unsuccessful launch
Europa 3: Cancelled before any launch occurred
Europa 4: Study only, later cancelled
The project was marred by technical problems. Although the first stage (the British Blue Streak) launched successfully on each occasion, it was the second or third stage that failed.
”
The article is currently assessed as start-class, and is missing a lot of information. It also lacks some basic features such as inline citations. Since Europa was a fairly major programme, enough information should be available to produce a much higher quality article, and it could probably be brought up to GA status with enough effort.
You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member ofWikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to theopt-out list.
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
-
-
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
-
-
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.
-
-
For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Just for the record, Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus that we use the dates that are listed by Parliament's website as their official term in office — and their website has always listed the start date as the first actual sitting of the House of Commons after the election, not the date of the election itself. For instance, Rob Oliphant's term is listed as being from 2008.11.18 (first sitting after the 2008 election) to 2011.03.26 (drop of writs to start the 2011 election). If you feel that we should change the term dates to the election dates themselves, you're welcome to propose that at WP:CWNB — but Mike Sullivan isn't an isolated case who gets to have May 2 in his infobox while all of the 100 or so other newly-elected MPs still have May 30. We need to either change every MP to the actual election date or none of them, not just Sullivan alone. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
-
Prior MPs' pages have never listed the election date as being the start of their terms in office; every single MP who has ever served in the House prior to the most recent election has their start date listed as the first actual sitting of the House after the election. Do you have evidence that they've chosen to change that to the election date for this election, or can you otherwise prove that the election date being present on Sullivan's page isn't just a temporary placeholder until the Parliamentary session actually opens?
-
Again, I'm not saying that we can't make the change you'd prefer — but if we do, it needs to be made across the board to every MP on Wikipedia who has a full date listed in their infobox. We can't just change Mike Sullivan to the actual election date while leaving everybody else at some other followup date (and I'm not the one who started using May 30, so if it's also wrong you need to track down whoever thought it was right rather than talking to me about it.) Bearcat (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
