{{Ping|N828335}} — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/100.2.238.109|100.2.238.109]] ([[User talk:100.2.238.109#top|talk]])
{{Ping|N828335}}
::Hey, I will get to this soon, probably the weekend. [[User:OkayKenji|OkayKenji]] <sup>([[User talk:OkayKenji|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OkayKenji|contribs]])</sup> 14:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
::Hey, I will get to this soon, probably the weekend. [[User:OkayKenji|OkayKenji]] <sup>([[User talk:OkayKenji|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OkayKenji|contribs]])</sup> 14:35, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
(I just posted this in MilHist and would appreciate opening the discussion here as well)
Hello, gang.
Since Mil Hist is possibly the most organized and active WikiProject, and since it's one for which I do frequent work, I wanted to open up the conversation here.
It has been my observation that Wikipedia is becoming an increasingly stagnant community. We still have our regular editors who have been here forever and are still diligently working, but new blood has dropped off, as has a lot of the conviviality that made WP a welcoming place back in the day.
I'm fairly new here, despite my ancient first-edit date. I didn't really start editing in earnest until about two years ago. I floundered at first, figuring out the Wikipedia style. I'm a professional space historian with thousands of articles to my credit, but I hadn't done encyclopedias before. The review process was intimidating.
I was fortunate to have been mentored and helped by a trio of great editors: @Kees08:, @Gog the Mild:, and @Balon Greyjoy: who very patiently made suggestions and improved articles I was working on (rather than just telling me what I did wrong; they let me learn by their example). They gave encouraging praise and pretty barnstars. Because of their support, I stuck with the project, and now I like to think I'm one of the more accomplished of the (scanty) new crop of Wikipedians. This is what I've managed thus far, most of it just in the last year.
With the departure of Kees08, things have gotten a lot chillier for new Wikipedians, at least in the Spaceflight and Mil Hist communities. I've been working hard to recruit new contributors, either by bringing in external writers who are new to WP, or tapping existing editors who have been mostly at the fringes. But it's been tough. I just lost one today -- when I let him out into the wild and he attempted to GA one of his articles, the reception was demoralizing. It's not that the suggestions people made were necessarily bad, but they were framed in ways that were discouraging and highly critical, especially for someone new to the process.
For example, here I nominated the new Wikipedian's article for GA for him since he's new, and it was summarily reversed, the article's assessment expressed in completely discouraging rather than encouraging tones. The subtext reads as "You submitted it wrong, and the article sucks anyway." Better phrasing might have been "Do you have connection to this article despite your name not being associated with it? Also, while the article has merit and I can see the author put significant work into it, it could use improvement in the following areas before it's ready for GA status (and if the editor be new, I'll be happy to offer advice and assistance.)"
The second attempt can be found here, in which Balon offers a fine review. However, I don't think "this article needs a lot of work. I would currently put it at B or C class. It doesn't do a comprehensive job of discussing Crippen and his career;" was necessary. It dismisses the work done thus far, and was ultimately the straw that broke the camel's back. When I do reviews, I tend to start positive and end positive so as not to dispirit the editor.
Most new Wikipedians aren't going to have the experience and skills that I do and thus have the interest or stamina to become regular editors unless we go the extra mile to help them adapt.
We have to remember that not all of us are grizzled veterans. It doesn't hurt to be friendly, to praise what's good in an article while noting what can be improved. It doesn't help to be brusque or demeaning. It is important to remember that tone never carries well in a text-only medium. "Assuming good faith" is extra tough for newbies unfamiliar with the process.
Now, you may be thinking at this point: "Why should we coddle new editors? They can sink or swim just like I did."
I get where you're coming from if you're thinking that. After all, this is a volunteer gig for you, too. You've only got so much energy to spend, and your experienced comrades require less of it since they already know the ropes. But the consequence of that sentiment is what we are seeing: increased barrier to entry, greater attrition for existing editors, and a declining number of new editors to replace and augment the community. If we can't recruit and maintain new editors, we will eventually fall below the minimum needed to maintain Wikipedia. I'm already seeing this happen in Spaceflight.
Even as a somewhat experienced editor, I have been adversely affected by the growing chilliness at Wikipedia: Despite doing a lot of reviews and producing dozens of solid articles, this last year I've gotten barely a notice for my work. Often, I don't even get a "thank you" for my reviews. I've done my best to be positive and improving for editors, giving out praise and awards (many of which I've made myself), but such overtures are often ignored. I recognize virtue is its own reward, but it's a bit dispiriting to put positive energy out into the community and get virtually none back.
More than any other Project, Mil Hist has the potential to reverse this trend. What does Mil Hist do to welcome and encourage new Wikipedians? How does it keep current ones engaged? I know there's a "Best New Editor" and "Best Editor" although even those can be more negative than positive as they create clear "Winners" and "Losers." I've been trying to greet every new person who joins Spaceflight, and also to give out merit awards for contributions. Are there folks who do that on this project? Who is actively maintaining the community, making editors feel valued and appreciated, maintaining the espirit d'corps?
I'm going to be bringing on more apprentice editors this year. I'm hoping that, if all of us work together, we can make a community that welcomes and retains these and other new editors so that Wikipedia does not ossify.
I welcome, encourage, and look forward to your thoughts. Please let me know if my experience mirrors yours or if I'm missing something.
I hope we can work on this. For better or for worse, Wikipedia is a very egalitarian community, and everyone has their say. It's great that everyone can get an input, but it's also difficult when EVERYONE can get an input. I think the problem is that Wikipedia is popular enough that we don't feel like we need to treat new editors like we need their help, but Wikipedia definitely still needs their contributions. I don't think this issue is limited to WP:SPACEFLIGHT, but that's the area we can most directly impact. I think it will require a mind shift that provides more critical feedback instead of straight criticism. As mentioned above, that is something I have to work on as well, and I hope to encourage future editors. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new and am jumping in here at Spaceflight. There hasn't been much of a welcoming committee but I've been enjoying myself. I'm just working through learning on my own. I've been making mistakes and picking myself back up when I get knocked down. I was very proud the first time an edit didn't get reverted. I am learning to slow down and be patient. I am learning to read related articles before making changes and to make arguments using policy instead of opinion. There is lots and lots and lots to learn. I agree, it isn't easy to break in as a Wikipedia editor. JaredHWood💬04:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A mentoring program here at the Wikiproject might be nice. N2e has been helping me out here and there and that has been helpful. Sign me up if anyone wants to create a pilot program for something like that. JaredHWood💬04:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jared.h.wood: Sorry I missed this! Were you interested in mentoring or being mentored? We've definitely done this informally, with Kees08 and, to some extent, Balon Greyjoy mentoring me. --Neopeius (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: I'd appreciate some constructive feedback on some of the edits I've been making. I know about mistakes I am making when they get reverted, but I wonder what mistakes I am making that are getting missed. If you're willing and have some time to give guidance, I'll take it. I'm even willing to execute some homework assignments to learn some of the important policies and guidelines. Jared.h.wood → JHelzer💬14:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can Everyday Astronaut be considered a reliable source?
Tim Dodd is not a journalist working with editorial oversight. He is also not just some guy with a website. Providing accurate and educational information about spaceflight is his business. Do his articles count as WP:RS?
As for me; I do not consider Tim's site to be WP:QUESTIONABLE, but it would be WP:RSSELF. RSSELF states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. This describes Everyday Astronaut to me, but I am biased because I really, really want to use this article (Starship SN8 12.5 kilometer hop) for citation. What does this community say? JaredHWood💬16:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Neopeius thanks very much, please let me know if you have any suggestions for improvements in both the tool and the documentation, also if you look in the wikicode you'll see I've tried to add comments to make it easier to customise. I'm thinking there might be a couple of useful versions of this for different kinds of user. John Cummings (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Il has been nominated for deletion on Commons. It seems likely it will be deleted as it seems to require a fair-use rationale, which Commons does not accept. It needs to be re-uploaded to English Wikipedia, with NFURs added for the capsule article and the mission article. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A textlogo [1] that does not meet the threshold of originality, and is thusly public domain, can be uploaded to Commons to replace the mission patch, for use on various other language Wikipedias, without any of us needing to know the language in question to write an appropriate NFUR for other languages. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Terasail: -- quite frankly, I've never liked this new one. The letters are so muddy against the planet. I won't revert it without consensus though... :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope of template Satellite and spacecraft instruments
Hi! I have opened a discussion on Template talk:Satellite and spacecraft instruments about the scope of that template. It would be far too large to include all Earth observing instruments, and indeed most listed instruments observe other planets, except there are a few Earth observing instruments. Inclusion criteria are unclear. I think we need some guidelines here. --GerritCUTEDH10:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been making a push to get all of the Timeline of Spaceflight articles up to snuff. After all, they are classified highest priority, and they serve as good hubs for the project.
While folks have done a good job of keeping the modern timeline articles up to date, pre-2009 has pretty much lain fallow for a decade.
I've gotten a few eyes on the first article and none on the second. If my spaceflight brethren could peek in and give reviews, that'd be great. I would love to be able to have High priority FLCs in the next Downlink :)
Ah, thats fine. @Neopeius: If you ever want FLC / FA nominations listed on the newsletter just ping me and I can add a section for it, I don't really understand the process but its good to try to get more spaceflight pages featured. Terasail[✉]14:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, I will definitely be following FLC/FAC more closely in the future and attempt to understand it better, but I do best with minor article updates, and with Templates/Scripts which is why my mainspace edit % is so low. Terasail[✉]14:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tereskhova was a uniformed member of the cosmonaut corps, and was trained in the operation of the Vostok, like other cosmonauts. Isaacman and Arceneaux are going on an autonomously operated SpaceX Dragon 2. They're more like Richard Garriot or Mark Shuttleworth who are classified as space tourists, even though they went into space. And not like Yi So-yeon, who was doing experiments in space, and had full cosmonaut training, and government support. Though a case could be made for them to be similar to Christa McAuliffe, being spaceflight participants. The question though is not if they are "astronauts", but if they are "commercial astronauts", which is where they are currently categorized. They are unlike the others currently so categorized, employees of space companies. Do you mean we should recategorize them into Category:Astronauts (or rather Category:American astronauts) instead of Commercial astronauts ? -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about Konstantin Feoktistov? Isaacman and Arcenaux are the only crew of this flight. They are presumably being trained for it. If they were just passengers, I could see them being tourists. A case could be made for Arcenaux being a participant (essentially filling the role of payload specialist). --Neopeius (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feoktistov seems to be a Soviet Deke Slayton, cosmonaut corps medically sidelined. We've already had a candidate space tourist medically sidelined, Enomoto. So, that leaves Isaacman, as a tourist, commercial astronaut, astronaut, spaceflight participant, or soemthing else. -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for orbital elements in the info-boxes of crewed missions ?
Hi everyone,
I have a question regarding the apogee and perigee indicated in the info-boxes of crewed missions (missions linked in List_of_human_spaceflights).
Some do not have sources, so I wonder where the info does come from. Some others have sources that link to obscure websites.
Taking for example the crewed missions to the ISS, it reveals an obvious mismatch with the known altitude of the Station. (Click attached homemade graph)
ISS missions apogee according to their articles
How can the apogee be so low compared to the ISS ? Maybe I am missing something ?
Most recent missions do not have these elements in their info-boxes. I think it would be a reasonable solution if you think, like me, that a lot of those could be inaccurate.
First time posting in a wikipedia Project. I did not know where to post this, and stumbled upon this page which seems to be the perfect place to post something like this ?
I've always been a bit confused myself about the need for the orbital elements in the Apollo article infoboxes, and feel they are of limited utility. The one-in-a-thousand (generously) editor who wants to know the selenocentric orbital parameters of, say, Apollo 14, probably knows that they changed several times and can find better, more specific sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Flights to the ISS never launch to the ISS orbit directly. Most of the time you would not end up in the same place as the ISS, and if you do then it's too risky to approach it using a big and relatively imprecise upper stage rocket engine. The typical rocket launch goes to an orbit below and behind the ISS, from there you "catch up" and then raise your orbit at the right time. I don't know what exactly is plotted in the graph, but it's probably the initial orbit for the lower Soyuz mission and a later orbit for the missions that match the ISS height. --mfb (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought it would mean something like this ; except these are articles about the missions, so we might want orbital parameters of the mission itself ? And the mission is the ISS.
So I propose to remove orbital parameters of missions to MIR and to the ISS. It it an acceptable change ? It seems too big a decision for someone new here. --LazyAssed Contender (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just referencing the ISS would work I guess. The ISS orbit when docking would be an option, too. The initial orbit would be more interesting in the scope of the rocket launch, not the crewed mission. --mfb (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, a request for comment like this should never contain your own opinions on the subject. It's supposed to be exclusively a matter of calling other editors' attention to a discussion about deleting an article. That guideline is supposed to prevent people from recruiting others favor their own position.
Starting with List of Electron launches (Which I split away from Electron (rocket) pages) there seems to be increase in articles which split the list of launches from their respective launch vehicle pages. What should (or should there be) a criteria when a split becomes necessary?
When I split the List of Electron launches my intent in was because of Rocket Lab's claim that they will have frequent launches and that would cause the article to become too long. In hindsight this is probably WP:CRYSTAL.
Recently I noticed that there are similar pages or drafts being created:
The new pages do add new info in some cases (I like some of the new graphs in particular like "by orbit" - maybe other list of pages can add them too). But also some of the lists have the formatting changed from the original which I found confusing. I don't think infoboxes are needed as readers can go to the main page about the rocket to learn more about it. And the heading "About the <rocket name>" doesn't seem like an encyclopedic tone, but other then that the pages seem fine.
So, at what point should the list of launches be split out (or how many launches of a particular launch vehicle warrant a dedicated list of launches article)? What info should we have on those pages? OkayKenji(talk • contribs)02:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://inspiration4.com/images/logo.png){kind=link}
