Portal talk:Spaceflight: Difference between revisions

Archives

March 2006 - January 2008
Space exploration

Status
Selected article	Critical
Selected picture	Critical
Selected biography	Critical
Did you know	Critical

Changes

Several things. Firstly, I've added a status indicator, which displays alerts when there is content missing from the portal. Critical is displayed when content is actually missing (eg. there is no selected article for the current week). Warning is displayed when the queue for content is nearly empty. In the case of something which is updated monthly, this means there is no content for the next month. In the case of something which is updated more frequently, this means there is no content for the next week. Nominal means that it does not really need attention. The template is also designd so that anybody involved in maintaining the portal can place a copy on their userpage, should they wish. It might also be a good idea to ask a few of the related wikiprojects to take a copy. The code to add it is {{Portal:Spaceflight/Status|align=|colour=|colourname=|width=}}. All parameters are optional. The "align" parameter can be set to "left", "right", or "center", "colour" is a hexadecimal RGB value for the background colour, "colourname" is the name of the desired background colour (eg. Red). Seeing as both "colour" and "colourname" do the same thing, only one should be set (if any). Width is the width of the box in pixels (there is no need to add "px" to the end). Note that the biography section is currently displaying "critical", not because there is a problem, but simply because the section has yet to be reconfigured for automatic rotation.
Secondly, seeing as it was so rarely updated, I've automated the selected picture system, in the hope that it will at least provide some variety in what is displayed. I intend to do the same with the selected biography section soon. I have also switched the selected article system from standard years to ISO years, which will prevent the problem seen over the last few days of 2007, where the portal attempted to call Week 1's article (which didn't exist). Finally, I have restarted the "on this day" project, which was proposed, started and died in late 2006. This is intended as a daily system to replace the current "selected anniversaries". See Portal:Spaceflight/On This Day and Portal:Spaceflight/On This Day/Index. I would appriciate some feedback on this before it gets much further, as I don't want to complete it and then find out that it is not wanted. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now converted the selected biography to rotate as well. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed we've had the same did you know... section for three days short of two years. I have set it to rotate as well, and am about to add it to the status indicator. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is done. It updates fortnightly, status warning one month in advance. I've also replaced the "things you can do" section with a direct transclusion of the to do list. It looks exactly the same, but is much more accessible. In addition, I have vectorised the logo image, which improves quality when viewed at resolution other than default, and loading time. The filename for the vectorised logo is Image:RocketSunIcon.svg (on Commons). Finally, I would like to raise a couple of issues. The left column is too long, and the right one is too short. We need to either move content from left to right, or add something new to the right column. Any ideas? Finally, I think the WikiProjects box looks ugly, and needs to be changed. How about a simple list of projects, without the purple box? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "on this day". It's empty starting tomorrow. I really like the idea and I think we should continue it. What sort of technique did you use to gather jan. 1 trough 12 ? I might be able to tackle a couple of days. Contribute a bit :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've writing brief entries for all orbital launches, and other significant events. I would appriciate it if tomorrow's section is left empty for now, as it is the only item which is not currently being displayed, so I am using it to test the status indicator. As for sources, http://www.astronautix.com/thisday/index.htm contains a lot of information. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the test was successful, so addition of content can resume. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status indicator doesn't seem to like leap years. It is currently giving a warning for OTD, but OTD is fine. I cannot find the cause of the bug, but I suspect it is leap-year related, and if this is the case, it will only happen for one week every four years, so there isn't much point wasting time with debugging it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse than I thought. This is not leap year related, and it's going to happen every two or three months. I'm working on it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Duplicate variable name in the code used to calculate days remaining in the month. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revisiting merger proposals~~

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result of the proposal was to merge - GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. A while ago it was proposed that this portal be merged into Portal:Space exploration. I opposed this proposal because at the time it seemed that the two portals were too spread out in scope. At the time, however, Portal:Space Exploration was quite new, and I didn't know exactly what they were planning to do with it. Now that Portal:Space Exploration has grown, I can see that there is far more overlap than I first anticipated. Therefore, I would like to reopen discussion of a merger, however my proposal is, that since Space exploration is a subsection of spaceflight, and not the other way around, Portal:Space exploration would be merged into Portal:Spaceflight, with preservation of all content from both portals. This proposal would result in one portal which is more managable, and with greater numbers of people to maintain and use it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support it. I have always thought that it is better to have one more general but well managed portal than 2 portals that operate at less than half speed (in the case of this one even less than quarter speed :D ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As stated in the previous discussion, I think we really should merge Portal:Space Exploration and Portal:Spaceflight. Whether the end product is called Spaceflight or not, I do not care much. What I would ask though, is that non-manned space ventures, for example just simple GPS satellite do stay in scope of the new portal. The technology of space was the main object of the work on Portal:Space Exploration and I would hate to loose that after all the work. Awolf002 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly why I think it would be better to use spaceflight rather than space exploration, as spaceflight is the more general term, encompassing the entire area of the use of space as well as its exploration, as opposed to space exploration, which implies only the exploitative aspects thereof. In short, this portal currently gives unmanned spaceflight more coverage than space exploration does, and this would be carried forward to the combined portal. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 02:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Of course there are many definitions of terms like "spaceflight" and "space exploration." As I see it, things and people are sent into space for three primary reasons: for the (scientific) exploration of space, for the (financial-gain oriented) commercializaion of space, and for the (strategic power-motivated) militarization of space. All three of these can involve both missions with crews and missions that are purely robotic. I do see "spaceflight" as being primarily about the process of sending people and things into space, and not (so much) about the motivations for sending them. As regards combining efforts on these two portals ... I have no strong opinions either way. (sdsds - talk) 07:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will conduct the merger tomorrow if no objections have been noted. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reject The two portals border each other, but seem to have zero overlap both in terms of content and in terms of context. One is about flight, the other is about scientific discovery. They are *not* the same, any more than air flight and antarctic exporation are the same thing.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than slightly confused by your analogy, not to mention your argument. Let's look at it carefully. Half the content on SE has nothing to do with exploration: "Thuraya 3 on Zenit 3SL rocket." - that's a comsat. What has that got to do with exploration? Satellite Instructional Television Experiment is listed in "Did You Know?" - what has that got to do with exploration? What has Doppler spectroscopy got to do with exploration? The selected article here is reguarly exploration-related. What do Satellites have to do with exploration? Last month, SE's selected article was Energia. That is SF's current SA. Quite apart from the fact that a rocket is, itself, not involved in conducting the "exploration", this points to an overlap. Less than half the SAs listed are relevant to SE. Several have been duplicated by both portals. The space exploration portal has no idea what space exploration is. It is trying to do everything this portal does, and I can see no logical argument against merging it into this one. One well maintained portal is much better than two poorly maintained ones which thanks to a poor definition of "space exploration" overlap in their entirity, as we have here. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stopped updating Portal:Space exploration in order to not get in the way of the merger. If the merger is on hold, I will go in and fix a few things. Anybody? Awolf002 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that GW_Simulations figured that a reasonable large time to discuss this might be prudent, probably taking in mind the rather large discussions that followed the WikiProject Space mergers last year. If you want to update a few things, you are more than welcome I think. Shall we set a targetdate to do the merger ? I propose 18 january (which would be exactly 2 weeks after the initial proposal. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good proposal. Let's set that date and see if we have consensus, then. Awolf002 (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I am curious, what would the lead section of the combined portal say? (sdsds - talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just holding back a few days because we don't have a 100% consensus. The date I set was only for if the proposal was unopposed. I'll just give it a few days to see if anyone else votes, but as things stand, we are still go to merge the portals at some time in the next week or so. I have drafted a new lead section:

The Spaceflight Portal

Spaceflight is the movement of spacecraft into and through outer space, primarily using rocket technology for propulsion. Spaceflight is used in space exploration, the endeavour to reach, explore, and exploit the space outside the Earth's atmosphere, and also in commercial activities like space tourism and satellite telecommunications. It is generally based on the use of rockets to transport machines, animals, and humans to, and subsequently through, space. Additional non-commercial uses of spaceflight include space observatories, reconnaissance satellites and other earth observation satellites. Objects launched into space may follow a Sub-orbital trajectory and return to Earth immediately, stay in orbit around Earth, travel in the space between the planets, or aim to leave the space dominated by the Sun completely.
(more...)

About the Spaceflight Portal...
I hope this is useful, any suggestions for improvement? --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started work on a draft of what the combined portal would look like. See User:GW_Simulations/SpaceflightPortal. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
~~Further discussion~~
Closed, consensus is to merge. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rotation intervals~~
~~Copied from my talk page:~~
Hi! I would suggest to adjust the schedules of the "selected" items, after I gained some experience running the Portal:Space exploration by myself for "forever": Images are much easier to come by than articles! Cycle the "selected image" once per week, and cycle articles/bios once a month. Also, I experimented with the "random" feature on the portal, and this may be something useful for the merged portal, as well.
~~-- Comment left by Awolf002~~
~~My reply, copied from User talk:Awolf002~~
I think the exact rotation spans would be best discussed at Portal talk:Spaceflight, but in my opinion, it would be best to have both the selected article and picture rotating weekly, and the biographies monthly. I agree with your comment about pictures being easier to rotate, and so I think that it would be a good idea to rotate these on a weekly basis, however I think that there should be no problem with keeping the article rotation weekly as well. In my experience at Portal:Spaceflight, there's been no problem in keeping the page up-to-date, and we've only missed one week since around this time last year. With the status indicator which I have developed, it should be easy to prevent this happening again. Assuming the merger goes ahead, which seems very likely, we will presumably have a few more people working on the portal, making it easier to maintain. Randomisation may be something to look at for the "did you know..." section.
~~I am copying this here as I feel this is the best place to discuss it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yes, the status indicator helps a lot! Let's try for awhile to see if we can keep up the pace! (sdsds - talk) 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Selected quote~~
~~How about adding a "selected quote" to the portal? I think there's enough material to change it weekly or fortnightly. Any comments? --G W… 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Grammar~~
Kudos to everybody who has done so much good work on the spaceflight-related articles, but there's some shocking grammar in some of them. Given that this is a subject of interest to so many people, might I suggest an effort to fix things a bit - if everybody just spent a few minutes fixing one of the articles about the Apollo program it would be a start. I plan to do my bit.... Regards Davidelit (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's a fair bit of overlinking. Whay on earth (or off it...) would there be a link to "curved groove" in the Apollo 15, Return to Earth article, for example? Davidelit (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~What has this got to do with the portal? I think you've posted on the wrong page. Try WT:SPACEFLIGHT. --G W… 18:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Static content for featured sections when dynamic content is not provided~~
I suggest updating the portal page so that when featured material has not been provided through the content rotation mechanism a plea is inserted using the #ifexist mechanism and content from a static sub-page is appended as well. Then whenever anyone gets motivated they can over-ride the static sub-page by providing material through the current content rotation mechanism. (sdsds - talk) 15:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea; it's not immediately clear to me how easy that would be to implement. I assume you mean that if there is a static subpage, say for November 2010, then that subpage would appear on the portal for all of November. One of the advantages of having the random portal component is that every time you reload the page there is something new. I think this probably exposes readers to more content (which is the main purpose of portals anyway), and I think this is why so many portals use random portal components, not just because it's less work. Mlm42 (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading your suggestion, maybe I have misinterpreted it.. Mlm42 (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gather this template may be of use, according to Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates: {{Random portal component with nominate}} Colds7ream (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Portal merge~~
I'd like to suggest that the Human spaceflight portal be merged into the Spaceflight portal and the resultant portal operated by all five Spaceflight-related WikiProjects, instead of just one per portal. Given the state of both portals, with out-of-date news sections, several empty boxes and a non-maintained to-do list, I feel that merging the portals in this way would assist in finally achieving the critical mass of editors needed to properly maintain a spaceflight portal, and hopefully achieve a featured portal, which would be an excellent advertisement for all involved projects. I am hoping to get as many editors as possible involved with this, and look forward to reading everyone's feedback and suggestions. Thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I like the idea. And as you said, it helps achieving the critical mass of editors needed to properly maintain a spaceflight portal. Rehman 08:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice idea. This would also keep the portal updated.Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Would it be possible, or is it the plan, to keep all individual portals as sub-portals? Either way I agree that a merge is needed to keep it maintained.--NavyBlue84 10:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by sub-portal, exactly? Isn't this just a different, yet more specific portal, like the current situation: Portal:Human spaceflight is like a subportal of Portal:Spaceflight, which is a subportal of Portal:Space? I think the proposal is to remove Portal:Human spaceflight, and redirect it to Portal:Spaceflight. Mlm42 (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the idea of rolling the projects together. While this doesn't work with all similar projects, these are similar enough that it should work. There sufficient overlap between Space and Human Spaceflight in particular. The Star and Astronomy portals have a lot of overlap and I never understood why the Mars and Solar System portals were separate While many editors focus on specific topics, the topics are interrelated enough that many editors contribute accross these many projects. Makes sense to bring them together. Of these, I could see maintaining human spaceflight as a sub portal but not the others. The resulting portal should be called "space".--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a Portal:Space, and I don't think that's part of Colds7ream's proposal; but it's not being maintained either.. I did a bunch of work on Portal:Space about 4 years ago, but haven't really done anything since. Maybe Space=Spaceflight + Astronomy, and the astronomy editors seems quite distinct from the spaceflight editors. Mlm42 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Unfortunately we have too many unmaintained spaces. In general I would like to see news sections removed as they seem to never be up-to-date on any project. Rmhermen (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good plan. Canada Jack (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The distinction between human and robotic missions will slowly blur anyway, as robots become ever more important in human missions. Yakushima (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree. There is currently a high degree of dispersion on documenting spaceflight efforts in wikipedia. Tom Paine (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I agree with RadioFan. ke4roh (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I support any plan that could create a more active editor base for the human spaceflight portal. aremisasling (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There is considerable overlap between "spaceflight" and "human spaceflight". I'd also support the use of random portal components (as currently in Portal:Human spaceflight, and Portal:Space), as well as the use of the Wikinews bot to import some news headlines automatically (see Portal:Space/News/Current, for example). This would mean only a minimal amount of effort would be needed to maintain the portal anyway. Mlm42 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The above arguments seem convincing to me. I think robotic and human spaceflight are essential (and really inseparable) components of our expansion off the Earth, and the practical virtues of combining and focusing our limited editorial resources are compelling. Unnecessary fragmentation can make meaningless labor for us, and create confusion. Wwheaton (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it's nice to see some enthusiastic support for my proposal! Just a few comments I'd like to make - first, that I also support the use of random portal components (but with a manual override available, as suggested in the section above), second that I would resist any move to remove the news sections from these portals, and third that I feel personally that merging everything into Portal:Space would be inadvisable - maybe HSF-->Spaceflight, Mars-->Solar System and Star-->Astronomy to begin with? If this were done, I see little reason for there to be an overarching space portal at all, to be honest. Colds7ream (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall there was some discussions regarding mergers on portals on the Astronomy side as well; but we'd have to bring it up there. I'm personally fine with merging portals as you suggest, but I don't think the Spaceflight wikiprojects should be able to decide what happens with the Astronomy portals! :) Mlm42 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, quite obviously - that was just a suggestion. I'd want to stick just to dealing with the spaceflight portals myself. Colds7ream (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC

Support: Seems less confusing, and will add to the several projects out there.Abebenjoe (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's great value in using portal "elements" in multiple portals. Note for example how the "next scheduled launch" element maintained for Portal:Spaceflight is transcluded into the Portal:Space "upcoming spaceflights" element. I certainly think it would be a great idea for Portal:Spaceflight to transclude some elements maintained by Portal:Human spaceflight. (sdsds - talk) 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 160: / Line 160: @@
 ::::Oh, quite obviously - that was just a suggestion. I'd want to stick just to dealing with the spaceflight portals myself. [[User:Colds7ream|Colds7ream]] ([[User talk:Colds7ream|talk]]) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC
 :'''Support''': Seems less confusing, and will add to the several projects out there.[[User:Abebenjoe|Abebenjoe]] ([[User talk:Abebenjoe|talk]]) 19:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
-::'''Comment''': There's great value in using portal "elements" in multiple portals.  Note for example how the "next scheduled launch" element maintained for Portal:Spaceflight is transcluded into the Portal:Space "upcoming spaceflights" element.  I certainly think it would be a great idea for Portal:Spaceflight to transclude some elements maintained by Portal:Human spaceflight. ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
+:'''Comment''': There's great value in using portal "elements" in multiple portals.  Note for example how the "next scheduled launch" element maintained for Portal:Spaceflight is transcluded into the Portal:Space "upcoming spaceflights" element.  I certainly think it would be a great idea for Portal:Spaceflight to transclude some elements maintained by Portal:Human spaceflight. ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 23:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Portal talk:Spaceflight: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:02, 9 November 2010

Changes

Revisiting merger proposals

The Spaceflight Portal

Further discussion

Rotation intervals

Selected quote

Grammar

Static content for featured sections when dynamic content is not provided

Portal merge