Jump to content

Talk:STS-117/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Oh boy. Bad Hail storm.

The hail storm has pushed the launch back until the end of April or early May. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

Manually archiving this. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Crew Photo

Lets see if there is a better one. There probably is a better one out by now. Casig10228 23:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mission Status

Is it appropriate to put a mission status section on the main page, or does it belong in discussion (or nowhere)?--Wikidelphia 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Launch time

The table says the Shuttle will launch March 15 at 6:43 AM. What 6:43 AM is meant? EST? UTC? --pile0nades(t,c) 19:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NASA launch times are always given for the zone of launch, which, for all NASA human flights, is Eastern time--Wikidelphia 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --pile0nades(t,c) 00:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Someone from my city!

A person from El Paso (where I live) is finaly going into space, a first in UTEP history! Congrats Mr. Olivas! Good luck Mr. O! I hope one day I go to space like Mr.O.

Mannyjr95 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Yay!

Regarding Wikiproject Space Missions

I would like, please, to gauge everyone's thoughts regarding the Wikiproject that is supposed to be governing pages such as this, Wikiproject: Space Missions. As far as I can see, the project seems to be in total meltdown, with no real updates to the project page since August 2006, inactivity with the project's assessing of pages, and a general complete lack of input from the project. To be honest, I don't think its serving the space shuttle mission community as well as it could, and as such i'd like to propose one of two things happen:

1. The project has a total overhaul with wikipedians who are actually going to keep the project running properly restarting it and operating it as it should be. 2. Forking a daughter project dedicated to Space Shuttle Missions (goodness knows we have enough pages to keep up-to-date) off the project with those contributors who are active in Shuttle pages setting up and running the project properly, enabling pages such as this to have an active wikiproject supporting them.

Just my twopenneth - personally, i'd prefer the fork option, but I'd appreciate other people's views. Colds7ream 18:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts at all? Anyone? Colds7ream 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point extra to mention, after reviewing the generally poor state of most of the space missions articles, i'd like to alter my vote from fork to restarting the Wikiproject itself. I would still appreciate any feedback from anyone out there who gives a damn... Colds7ream 11:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal to redo the entire set of WikiProjects concerning Space. At the moment it's being bogged down in some minor details, but, if you have anything you want to add to the discussion, go right ahead! --Miguel Cervantes 22:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Press Kit Timeline

I added the timeline from the STS-117 press kit. I'm not sure if it really belongs in the article, though. Comments? Sdsds 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It'd probably work better if it could be formatted into proper prose, rather than the bullet points? Colds7ream 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I take your point - prose might be better. I've taken a first step and removed the bullets, thus making it a bit more compact, at least. Sdsds 06:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

External Tank Damage

The external tank for Atlantis has been damaged by hailstones. If it had been launched, what could happen with damage on the external tank? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

One fear, implicit in some of the wording of press releases, is that damage to the insulation on the external tank could cause insulation to come off during launch, and damage the orbiter. It would be great if someone could find a citable source that makes that fear explicit. Sdsds 06:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A Space Barnstar?

Following a quick comment on Talk:Mir, i've put together an idea for a space-related barnstar, based on the NASA astronaut pin - what do we think?

Colds7ream 09:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very Nice! You sure do put rather random things in the talk pages. Aalox 04:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
it's great! i'll try to improve it and add it below yours. themcman1 Talk 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, what's life if not varied? ;-) Glad you like it; I look forward to seeing the improved version. Colds7ream 18:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Spaceflight

Hello again everyone - just to let you all know that, following the reorganisation proposal, the human spaceflight-related efforts have been merged into a central project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Spaceflight. A page for the project has been created, but is pretty much blank, and so I'm going to do my best to get it started off and working properly supporting our efforts. Help from anyone interested will be essential, and I hope you'll consider lending a hand. With some work, we can really make this project work well, and get these articles up to the quality they deserve. Colds7ream 21:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Launching}} tag

Template:Launching (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was originally intended for use for launches happening in the next week. It has since slipped up to two weeks, but I think three weeks is pushing it a bit. It's too late to worry about doing anything now, but I would suggest that if there are any further delays, and for future missions, Template:Future spaceflight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should be used instead. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is the harm with putting a similar tag up before two weeks? It seems to me that it wouldn't hurt anything to start earlier. Thanks, Falconusp t c 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that possibly we could come up with a new template for longer countdown times, i.e. for over the two week mark - it does seem to be a bit silly to have "either currently in the process launching or scheduled to launch within the next [long period of time]", especially as when the countdown gets really low people (including myself) start updating it minute-by-minute? Colds7ream 10:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We have {{future spaceflight}} and this one, and that's enough. We don't need to go all tag crazy and we are not NASA either (when it comes to countdowns) I propose we add a link to a NASA countdown page to the {{launching}} tag instead. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

countdown page now to come up with the best way to incorperate that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Would y'all be against doing something that involves automatically updating it every time the page loads? Just food for thought. --Falconusp t c 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

L-One Week

Well, folks, its almost that time again - one week to go till we're off again! Ladies and gentlemen, on your marks!!! Go Atlantis! Colds7ream 10:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder what improvements it would take during this next week to gain concensus before launch that this article should be rated something other than "Start" class? (Sdsds - Talk) 22:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Suni Williams Name

They should have put Suni Williams's name on the crew patch and included her in the photo. It seems that they dont want to include the returning astronauts name and picture in anything. They should cuz they are full members of the crew and are officialy designated Mission Specialists. Same thing happened on STS-116 they put Suni William's name on the patch but not returning astroanut Thomas Reiters. They should have also put the German Flag along with the US and Swedish flags on that patch. Thing is they used to do that for the Shuttle-Mir missions (including both name on patch and picture). Does anyone know why they dont do that anymore? 

--TopGUN71691 05:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
One shuttle round trip -> one shuttle patch. Seems fair enough to me! (And heck, Williams gets both Expedition 14 and Expedition 15 patches!) Also, how exactly would they include her in the STS-117 photo other than by photoshopping it? (Sdsds - Talk) 22:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
They photshopped Andresons name on the 117 patch after he was bumped from 118. But they knew Reiter was gonna be coming home on 116 months in advance and even when they thought Williams was coming home on 118 they didnt put her name on there. Same with the crew pictures. On the Shuttle-Mir mission both upgoing and downcoming crewmembers were put in the photo cuz it was takin months in advance. Dont do that now. They should at least photoshop them in like they used to do with say STS-102 for example wehre they kinda make a collage. Just a thought? TopGUN71691 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the launch time correct?

Launch is scheduled for 23:38:02 GMT (19:38 EDT on 7 June). All pre-launch processing has proceeded nominally so far, and the crew started to board Atlantis at 20:50 GMT. NASA is not currently working any issues with the launch. Weather is 80% go to support a launch.

Isn't that 23:38:02 DST? And therefore 22:38 GMT? Apologies if I'm incorrect... 212.139.108.44 21:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is 23:38 GMT. I am British, and I know that the launch time is 00:38 BST. The only mistake is the "on 7 June" bit. That's my fault, I got confused with this morning's Delta launch. I have corrected that, but the GMT time is correct. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for sorting that out. Nice one. Never watched a launch before so I was confused by all the different countdowns and things, but I got it sorted now :) 212.139.108.44 22:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TAL site weather

METAR LEZG 082230Z 33004KT 9999 FEW045 SCT120 25/12 Q1016

TAF LEZG 082000Z 082106 VRB03KT 9999 SCT040

METAR LFMI 082200Z 14004KT CAVOK 21/18 Q1017 NOSIG

TAF LFMI 082000Z 082106 VRB03KT CAVOK

PROB30
TEMPO 0006 4000 BR

--  Denelson83  23:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

39-A vs. 39-B

Although the Space Shuttle Processing Status Report S-092806 does state that STS-117 will launch from 39-B, I have very strong doubts that this is true. 117 was moved to 39-A in April 2006. The manifest, launch schedule, and countless other documents have it at 39-A. In fact, later this month we may see the second MLP go out to 39-A as a test before being brought back in for maintenance prior to the starting the stack process in late November. However, I am cognizant that the latest press release includes an entry for 39-B, so I won't change it. Just be on the lookout for this information to change back to 39-A, as what is in the press release is most likely a mistake. Cjosefy 11:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The official handover date of Launch Pad 39B from Shuttle to Ares operations is April 1, 2007. STS-117 is scheduled for February. So I would say, that 39B should be right. Let's wait for later status reports. --STS-Chris 11:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I hope what I said didn't sound like an affront to you. You obviously have an interest in these sorts of things, and I greatly appreciate you updating the information on STS-116 and STS-117, even if I believe this information to be incorrect. For better or for worse, the public information that NASA has released appears to be opposite of a great deal of internal information. In these cases, I understand that for the great majority of times, the public information must be used. I agree that we should wait for more information to publicly come out. There's a good chance both of us will stay on top of this issue. FYI, because you're interested, it appears that 39-A will be ready for flight ops on December 8, 2006. Cjosefy 14:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This source says that it is 39A. Hektor 16:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article currently reads, "pad B will be deactivated after the launch of the Hubble servicing mission." This isn't quite right, is it? Won't it be at the end of the Hubble servicing mission that 39B is no longer needed by the shuttle program? Is there really a need for this text at all in an article about sts-117? Sdsds 01:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

i changed the article to include 39b as a stand-by. it is clearly noted as such on nasa websites, and also is known internally to be available for emergencies during routine shuttle flights. pad 39b will NOT be fully deactivated as a shuttle launchpad until AFTER STS-125 --Snideology 02:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
actually, after further research, it appears only the late columbia had an airlock, so i cant really figure out how a rescue would take place. but a rescue is planned. i must be missing something--Snideology 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The means of a rescue are talked about at STS-3xx, including the Personal Rescue Enclosure.--Miguel Cervantes 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
your response was most valuable. thank you

Feminine

Is it really necessary to refer to the orbiter as "she"? Given that it has no genitals, it seems inappropriate, and a bit odd, frankly to do so. 08:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's a standard since the old days of sailing the seas? lol - perhaps it was lonely delusional sailors that started considering their ship as a "she", but I don't REALLY know. I don't mind it, either. Allyddin Sane 13:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she").--Miguel Cervantes 17:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

4 to 5 inch Hole in Thermal Protection System

Here is the Wikinews article: [1] The sources from news items are at the bottom.

should there not be a routinely updated 'mission status' section on current space flights? the damage is probably not significant, but it still is relevant--Snideology 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

STS-117 new crew

I can't help but notice that everybody on this mission is an American man. I don't have anything against American men, being one myself, but isn't this kind of unusual these days? Don't they usually have foreigners and women aboard? Is there any reason in particular why they are doing this, or is it just a fluke? STS-123 is all men also, but there is someone from Japan scheduled to fly.

--Falconusp t c 22:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

hmm, hadn't noticed that yet... It's unusual these days, but just fate i guess. Just happens to be USA crew that goes in and out of ISS rotation, and just happens to have not a single non-US crewmember. Uncommon, but there have been A LOT of foreign crew members recently, so this is probably just balancing out the hours. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Suggest someone should do the math: given the gender distribution in the active NASA astronaut corps, if a crew were selected at random, what are the chances of the selected crew being all male? (My guess: pretty good.) As regards international participation, isn't this governed by contracts with those space agencies? In particular one might notice that e.g. when an Italian-built element is being added to ISS, and Italian astronaut is among the crew (Harmony/Nespoli), etc. And yes, when Takao Doi is a mission specialist on STS-123 the Kibo module gets added to ISS. (Coincidence? Methinks not! ;-) But on the conspiracy theory side: have you noticed all the STS-117 astronauts are light-skinned American males with receding hairlines and little or no facial hair? (Sdsds - Talk) 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL at the conspiracy theory, but I too had noticed that. Regarding the general topic, not only is it more likely within NASA to pick an all-men crew, but also to have an all-American one. After all, it's NASA (not ESA, lol) - and there aren't THAT many foreign astronauts with arguments in their favor as Doi has with Kibo. At least that's what I think, I have not really read into space politics yet. Allyddin Sane 23:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is it an all-male crew? Because they're the best men for the job. Pure and simple. Colds7ream 21:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
could well be the final all American males Shuttle crew... Hektor 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Of the last 10 missions (including this one), eight have had foreign astronauts - the other one not to was in April 2002. You have to go back to April 2001 for the last all-male mission. Both this one and the one in November 2002 launched all-male but picked up a female in space. Rmhermen 03:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
True... we'll see what the future brings, I haven't yet looked at future crews (and they are sometimes subject to change, too). Allyddin Sane 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

STS-117#Incorrect_press_reports_of_accident

First became aware of this from a French related blog, which I have found appropriate reliable sources for and added to the article. Sadly, most of those references are in French, so if someone happens to find some english language reliable sources to back the story to add it would be appreciated. Thewinchester (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting story! Thanks for adding the website references -- that really helps. One of them has a screenshot purporting to show the story being carried on another (presumably major media) website. That screenshot shows the date of June 9, so I changed the date used here to conform. Presumably this is June 9 in France, which might well still have been June 8 in Florida, and thus may have been quite shortly after launch. (sdsds - talk) 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Does trivia of this sort this belong in this article? It seems like clutter to me (an accidental news story about a non-existing accident?). May have a place in the Agence France-Presse article, as it is much more about their methods and credibility. - Bevo 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That is common journalist practice AFAIK. I don't mind the story in here, but it could be shortened slightly. Allyddin Sane 19:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
If it belongs anywhere in the STS articles, then I'd discuss it as a legacy of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, and in that article instead. - Bevo 21:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Bevo, I was unsure about which article would be the best place for it myself. And while it's a common practice, its the first time in as long as I can remember that a wire service has published their 'just in case' report albeit accidentally. Thewinchester (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Wake up call on Day 10 (Father's Day)

Shortly after 8 AM (CDT) on Sunday on the NASA channel I heard them playing "Butter Fly Kisses"; which would be a very approative wake up song for Father's Day, but another editor has already stating the wake up call that morning was the theme song from Band of Brothers instead. Any explainations? (I'm not aware of NASA previously televising more than one song a day.) Jon 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The official wake-up call song was the Band of Brothers theme. And it's not uncommon for them to have other songs played during the day. Sometimes they play around a bit :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I guess I turned into the channel a little late yesterday. Jon 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted entertainment section

I do, to a degree, understand the reason for the deletion, but I think this info should go someplace, even if not in this article. I don't care what kind of music the officers listen to on a transatlantic cruise ship, but I don't think it's as trivial to know what ISS astronauts do in their off-duty time. Since I wouldn't know where else to put this info, I do opt to revert the deletion. My opinion, happy to hear others'. Allyddin Sane 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be saved up in someone's user space, and then when there's a decent amount of material, an article called entertainment on board the International Space Station. Comments? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. Another solution could be to throw it in as a minor point on the flight day everything was transferred (e.g. The crews exchanged greetings and gifts, including DVDs of "Serenity" and "Firefly" for whoever got them).--Miguel Cervantes 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Both great ideas in my POV, and compatible, too. Would you add that sentence (if there's concensus among more users than us) and we save stuff like this until it merits its own article. I haven't looked, but there must be some mention of this from other shuttle missions or even other articles? Allyddin Sane 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
How about starting a section of the ISS article called ==Crew activities== and when it accumulates enough material, branch it off to Crew activities aboard the International Space Station. "Crew activities" would give the reader a sense of what day to day life is like aboard the station. How long do they spend using excersize equipment? How much time doing science? How much time doing station maintenance and repair? How much off-duty time do they have, and what entertainment is available? Eventually there would be enough material to fill an article.... (sdsds - talk) 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Great idea! Can we get data on the exercise/science times and stuff? I just know the off-duty-periods during shuttle missions are listed in the NASA TV schedule... ;-) I would suppose that to be different in "normal" ISS schedule. Allyddin Sane 19:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, very good idea! See how things develop when teamwork kicks in! I wonder if we should clarify Off-duty crew activities aboard the International Space Station... ? What do the others here think? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's more precise. But can we use "ISS" in the title to shorten the whole thing somewhat? Allyddin Sane 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that nescescary? I mean, we can use ISS in the article body, but should we use the longer title to clarify? It's no longer than a lot of other article titles I could list here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It's just a suggestion, but in doubt I personally prefer shorter titles, especially as I think it is pretty clear what is meant in this case. Allyddin Sane 12:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You can use ISS in the title. We also have ISS assembly sequence, and it's not something you are bound to type into the wiki searchbox, so it should be just fine. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, if there's a;ready a trend for shorter, let's stick to it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Myself, I was most curious on the physics of playing a board game with dice in a zero G enviorment. (The Monopoly game) That would actually seem to me to be a lot of work keeping the chance && cc cards together and geting the dice to stop rolling. The DVDs though weren't that interesting since there's no obvious challenge to watching them in zero G. Jon 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Space Station or TIE Fighter?

Anyone else notice the similarity? :-)

File:TIErc.jpg

Colds7ream 19:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Oh dear. Now the men from NASA will quietly take you away in the night for discovering their true plans... ;) NeoThermic 19:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Time zones and formats

Could I recommend that times in the timeline section are converted to UTC, with the local time in brackets afterwards. This is to avoid confusion when the Shuttle is in different time zones (eg. at landing), and in space, where there is no time zone. All the recent Shuttle mission articles use UTC, so it makes sense that this one should follow suit. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

there is indeed (or was) a 'time zone' for Space: UTC. I don't know if that is still used, and may not have been official.--Wikidelphia 05:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically, of course, the only space-specific time zone is MET, so is there any way we could efficiently make use of this? Colds7ream 12:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Explain this please? I was unaware that Central European Time or Middle Eastern Time (both known by MET at one time or another) is used for space time? I am dubious, but open to sourced reply :) --Wikidelphia 03:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Mission Elapsed Time (MET) is 'The clock' for a mission, which the astronauts use to schedule their tasks during their flight. The NASA FAQ page also states that this is the main 'Time Zone' for a mission. Colds7ream 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
UTC is probably the best representation for general purposes. With UTC one can directly convert it to whatever local time is desired. With Mission Elasped Time first one has to figure out what UTC was zero. Jon 18:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of UTC for reasons stated above. Allyddin Sane 05:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sts-116-patch.png

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Sts-116-patch.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:STS-116 emblem.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on STS-117. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on STS-117. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:STS-117/Archive_1&oldid=1229188834"