Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight

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


Main page   Discussion   Members   Assessment   Open tasks
Popular pages   Recognized content     Awards   Portal
WikiProject iconSpaceflight Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


After a protracted argument on the Dyson sphere talk page that seemed to be going nowhere, I decided to consolidate and restate the basic issues concerning this section in general, and one particular instance that has proven especially vexing, as I see them. I hope that members of this and other related WikiProjects might weigh in and give their opinions. P Aculeius (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated lists for Mars missions[edit]

There is this List of missions to Mars, and there are three lists that are mostly duplicates, List of Mars landers, List of Mars orbiters, and List of artificial objects on Mars. I think both can be safely redirected to the main list without any loss of content, with a little merge from the third article (section on garbage on Mars). What do you all think? Artem.G (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: having all four lists is ridiculous Redacted II (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Euclid (spacecraft), as a space telescope, not be italicized (per James Webb Space Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope, etc.) and even the name changed to reflect its status as a space telescope. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discord Link Inactive[edit]

The discord link on the main page is either expired or disabled. Is the discord still active? CarterFendley (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROD of VSS Imagine[edit]

Hi folks -- I just saved VSS Imagine from a PROD, but the article could certainly use a little love from anyone who can help out please? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

The style guide states that "Since space is not within any Earth-bound time zone, and to avoid regional bias, the WP:WikiProject Spaceflight community has established a consensus (discussed here) to use UTC."

What it doesn't make explicitly clear, does that include using the DMY date format too?

It appears to me that most pages use the DMY date format, but the Apollo and SpaceX Starship pages appear to be notable exceptions. I attempted to change over the Starship pages, @Redacted II opposed to the changes (discussion here).

I was hoping to get some clarity on the matter from those involved in the earlier discussions (@N2e @ChiZeroOne @Craigboy @Secretlondon).
Thanks! RickyCourtney (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For additional info, the changes were to the IFT-1, IFT-2, IFT-3, and IFT-4 articles.
All the articles listed above did have the "Use MDY" template, while most other spaceflight articles have the "Use DMY" template (including SpaceX Starship and SpaceX Starship Flight Tests).
(Additionally, the draft List of SpaceX Starship Launches uses DMY) Redacted II (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How articles were originally created matters. Whether some more recent editor might have changed the article template to the "Use MDY" template", the improtant question is whether there was a solid discussion & consensus for the change from DMY to MDY. So that would need to be looked at for some of the articles you mentioned.
But broadly, I think we are much better off if English Wikipedia spaceflight articles are in a more global standard of date and time formats, and not the US-centric narrow flavor. So, I'd be in favor of DMY data format and UTC times as the default starting point. For orbital launches, I believe we adopted the practice long ago to give times in UTC (with parenthetical local time, if relevant). N2e (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too am in favour of DMY data format. This is implicitly endorsed by the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide and the MOS (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers). The use of DMY dates used to be explicitly endorsed in the project style but we had problems with people changing the style of articles. The guidelines state that the date style of an article is that of the first non-stub version of an article. (MOS:DATERET) Where there is a {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} template, that will be honoured by the bots and templates, and should be honoured by editors too. While MOS:MILFORMAT trumps MOS:DATERET, my preference has always been to seek consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add something back to the style guide to reflect this? I see there was something there until January 2022. I’d suggest:
It is preferred that dates be in a day-month-year format (7 July 1983), however Wikipedia’s guidelines on retaining established date formats (see WP:DATERET) should be respected.
-- RickyCourtney (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BilCat and @Ergzay who were involved with that removal. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]