This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight: Timeline of spaceflight Mid‑importance This article 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the timeline of spaceflight working group.

Hi Abdullah1099! In this edit, you added a footnote that depends on a citation named "rl-20230228". But that citation is never defined in this article and causes the article to generate an error when displayed. Are you able to provide a definition for that citation so that the error can be fixed, and the material that you've added is properly referenced? -- mikeblas (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abdullah1099! In this edit, you added three different footnotes that depend on a citation named "otterpup2-odar". There's no such citation defined in the article, so your edits cause a referencing error and leave the items you've added to the article unreferenced. Are you able to provide a correct definition for that citation so that the error can be fixed and the material that you've added is properly referenced? -- mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not added Otter Pup 2 Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the specific change where you added the dependnecies to "otterpup2-odar". Maybe it's best to simply revert the change, since you aren't able to fix it. -- mikeblas (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, You can revert it. But Please do not delete the article. Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unreferenced payloads. Note that I never suggested deleting the article. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Abdullah1099! In this recent edit, you added a footnote that depends on a citation named "Cert-2". But there is no citation with that name defined here, causing a referencing error in the article. Are you able to provide the citation so the material is correctly referenced, and the error is fixed? By the way, are you copying this material from some other part of Wikipedia? -- mikeblas (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I not coping but aligning this with the Vulcan Centaur launches list. Abdullah1099 (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does anyone think of splitting up the launches for 2025 into four season articles (Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun, Jul-Sep, Oct-Dec) instead of two half-year articles? ----Poomfang ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With potentially over 300 launches in 2025, that might be something to be debated. AmigaClone (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, spaceflight is getting common over the years and while it may not come closer to airline numbers anytime soon, even four season articles may not suffice. How do we plan for that? Footy2000♡; 07:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a few different ways to deal with the issue.

1) Split the existing launch articles into orbital and suborbital;

2) Have monthly launch articles;

3) Condense Starship missions that include launches of tanker Starships into one entry, with separate articles describing the various launches involved for each mission in detail. The launch time and date for the entry in the main launch article would be for the launch that does not involve a tanker Starship.

AmigaClone (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it is okay to use  European Union flag for ESA/European related data. The ESA has Norway, Switzerland and United Kingdom members which aren't part of the EU. I'm coming from List of missions to the Moon#Mission milestones by country where EU flag isn't used but rather ESA's logo. Footy2000♡; 15:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make any more sense to categorize the Ariane and Vega rockets as ESA rockets when the rockets are being categorized by their country of origin. If anything Ariane should be categorized as a French rocket and Vega should be categorized as an Italian rocket. Lomicto (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. So we can conclude with: every statistic attributed to the rocket's country of origin except in obvious cases of spaceports where its location in a country is maintained as usual. Footy2000♡; 07:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

France as a country achieved an orbital flight back in 1965, with its own rocket, separate from the rest of Europe. Also, what flag should be used for the Europa rocket?

I feel that the EU flag shows that both rockets and other missions are from the same set of countries, not agencies (for example NASA and SpaceX are both under the U.S. flag) 73.160.112.44 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both rockets means Ariane and Europa 73.160.112.44 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree except for the small detail that outside of ESA Launch Vehicles (Ariane and Vega) rockets are classified in this and other "year in spaceflight" articles according to the UN's definition of country of origin.

In the 'Online Index of Objects Launched into Outer Space' maintained by United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) the list of nations and organizations includes ESA.

I would suggest that instead of using the EU flag for Ariane or Vega rockets that instead ESA's patch is used. AmigaClone (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]