Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We currently have at least 17 space-related WikiProjects, which are starting to overlap and become unmanagable. I am therefore proposing that they be restructured and reorganised in order to improve productivity and reduce duplication of work.

Contents 1 Current Structure 2 Initial proposal 2.1 Changes 2.2 Revised structure 3 Discussion 3.1 Structure 3.1.1 Propositio Rursi 3.2 On the wish list: a decision! 3.3 Rocketry 3.4 Space missions 3.5 Mars 3.6 mars spacecraft 3.7 Constellations in Astronomical Objects 3.8 Is WikiProject Space necessary? 4 update 5 redirection of talk pages 6 Organigram 7 solar system objects 8 Astronomy COTW 9 Template database 10 article assessments 10.1 Merging templates 10.2 test template 11 Private space exploration

[edit] Current Structure

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Space
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Space Colonisation
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Martian Geography
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Space exploration
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Space travellers
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Space missions
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Unmanned space missions
      • Wikipedia:WikiProject Mars Spacecraft
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Spaceflight
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch vehicles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects
    • Wikipedia:Astronomy Collaboration of the Week
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Constellations
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spacecraft
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Moon

(based on categorisation and/or information on project pages)

[edit] Initial proposal

[edit] Changes

1. WikiProject Space is retained as the common parent project, and continues operating as before.
2. WikiProject Astronomy continues operating as before, as a child project of WikiProject Space.
3. WikiProject Solar System continues as before, as a child project of WikiProject Astronomy
4. WikiProject Astronomical objects becomes the Astronomical objects task force, run jointly between WikiProject Astronomy and WikiProject Solar System.
5. Wikiproject Constellations becomes the Constellations task force, operating as part of WikiProject Astronomy.
6. WikiProject Martian GeographyWikiProject Mars becomes the Mars task force, operating as part of WikiProject Solar System, expanding its scope to cover all aspects of Mars.
7. WikiProject Moon becomes the Lunar task force, operating as part of WikiProject Solar System.
8. WikiProject Space exploration continues as before, as a child project of WikiProject Space.
9. WikiProject Spacecraft is depricated.
10. WikiProject Unmanned space missions is merged into WikiProject Space Exploration.
11. WikiProject Human Spaceflight continues as before, as a child project of WikiProject Space Exploration
12. WikiProject Space missions merges into WikiProject Human Spaceflight.
13. WikiProject Space travellers becomes the Astronaut task force, operating as part of WikiProject Human spaceflight.
14. WikiProject Launch vehicles becomes WikiProject Rocketry, a child project of WikiProject Space Exploration, and expanding its scope to cover all types of rocket, and other aspects of rocketry.
15. WikiProject Mars spacecraft is depricated. Its duties are split between the Mars task force, and WikiProject Space Exploration.
16. WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight becomes the Timeline task force, operating as part of WikiProject Space Exploration.
17. WikiProject Space Colonization is merged into WikiProject Human Spaceflight.
18. In Addition:
    1. Astronomy Collaboration of the Week is moved from WikiProject Astronomical Objects to WikiProject Astronomy
    2. A Spaceflight Collaboration of the Week is created, as part of WikiProject Space Exploration.

This proposal reduces 17 projects to just 6

[edit] Revised structure

• WikiProject Space
  • WikiProject Astronomy
    • Astronomy Collaboration of the Week
    • Astronomical objects task force
    • Constellations task force
  • WikiProject Solar System
    • Lunar task force
    • Mars task force
  • WikiProject Space exploration
    • Timeline task force
    • WikiProject Human Spaceflight
      • Astronaut task force
    • WikiProject Rocketry
    • Spaceflight Collaboration of the Week

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Structure

This is just an inital proposal, please discuss changes and improvements here. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "operating as part of...", "sub-topic of " and "child project". I don't understand how this will be implemented in practice. Will to main topic and sub topic still act as independent project? or will the main project have multiple talk pages? Lunokhod 16:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not do one project, space, and then have the sub project be "task forces"? I personally think that Space exploration and astronomy should possibly be the only two sub-projects. Wikiprojects work better once a critical mass of people is reached. Having everyone in one spot would help that. -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 16:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What practical differences (both in the short and long term) would having task forces rather than wikiprojects make? Would it not be better to merge wikiprojects and centralise their discussion, to get more people joining in with each discussion? How would the portals fit into this proposed structure? Mike Peel 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm generally happy with the above proposals. My only problems are (1) I don't think it is a good idea to use words like "task force." I think that we should leave the project names as is; if we have an "organigram" like above, the relationship between the projects will be obvious. (2) I think that constellations should be merged into one of the astronomy projects; this project appears to be near the end of its life. (3) I still think that astronomy and astronomical objects should be merged. The creation of Solar system will lighten the load on the merged project. Lunokhod 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree that "task force" does not seem to mean anything. At the moment, these WikiProjects serve as discussion forums. It would be better to merge projects together so that the discussions all take place in one location. I see no reason to have multiple subprojects or task forces or whatever. I would suggest having two projects: one for astronomy, and one for spaceflight. Dr. Submillimeter 23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is probably best to start by merging the smallest and inactive projects into the bigger ones. The projects will work if they have achieved a critical mass, and if they don't, we can merge these into the parent projects. I think if we go slowly over the next month or two, picking off one project per week, that things will self-organize. I suggest by starting with constellations and timeline. Lunokhod 10:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Dr. Submm and Lunokhod. I gave notice a while back on the WP Constellations talk page about my intention to merge it into WP Astronomical Objects. As noone has objected, I have now carried out that merger. Mike Peel 19:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I support having fewer projects and merging the inactive projects into the active ones incrementally. I do note that the astronomical objects project has by far the greatest number of members, and therefore would recommend that it survive with perhaps a rename to the more general astronomy and merge the current astronomy project over to it in the interest of the least disruption to existing members and discussion threads. WilliamKF 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could make an infobox that shows the hierachical relationship of these projects? Lunokhod 22:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a copy of the current list (above), and have indented and rearranged things to show a rough hierarchical interproject list; see User:Mike Peel/Astronomy projects. I'm sadly constrained to 2D, though, so I can't show the relationships between (e.g.) Martian Geography and Mars Spacecraft. Mike Peel 23:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's good! Not the 2D constraints, the list. You may overcome the 2D constraint by numbering the items in an extra column, and add yet another column with a comment, say "relates to 4". We humanoids can parse that. Rursus 20:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why by the way, is constellations task force crossed over? Rursus 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because the constellations wikiproject is not more. Mike Peel 22:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK. But I'll work with constellations, and if anyone would be interested in such a task force, he/she will be welcome to talk to me, otherwise I'll just do what I do... Rursus 13:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I think that Astronomical objects is so active that it shall be in a separate wikiproject. While astronomy may take care of constellations, observations and telescopes, astronomy maths and physics, astronomy history and the like, astronomical objects draws an immense amount of band width, and as I believe, also the vast number of solar system objects. Astronomical objects for stars and deep sky, solar system for planets (including exoplanets IMHO). Rursus 20:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propositio Rursi

[Proposition image archived here: User:Rursus/Proprs] Rursus 11:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Commenting my own proposal: it's easy to forget that the encyclopedia users need a superficial overview over the vast myriad of topics before delving deep into the sciences, like we have done a long time ago – therefore I believe it's of outmost importance that we have coordinating WikiProjects like Space Wikiproject even if it's area of responsibility would seem unclear. Rursus 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Solar System studies should be a subset of "astronomy". In essence, while this was probably the case before the space race, when solar system studies were based primarily on observational techniques, today, solar system studies have evolved more towards geology, atmospheres, geophysics, hydrology, geochemistry, isotopes, etc.; i.e., the understanding of how a specific planet evolves with time through internal and external forces. Before extrasolar planets were discovered, I'd say "planetary scientists", and "astrophysics" worked almost in isolation. Nevertheless, today people are starting to talk about solar system formation in the context of these newly discovered planetary systems, so maybe this is no longer true. While both disciplines use "remote sensing", in practice, these methods are not that similar. Just my opinion. Lunokhod 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. Mostly no. Planetary science is a part of astronomy. It uses a set of scientific methods and concepts shared by the non-planet-system astronomers, like magnitude (visual/absolute), telescopes, interferometry (?), spectra, long time exposures, newtonian celestial mechanics... During the first space age (which has not yet ended) the planets were reachable by space crafts, while the stars weren't. This, and a couple of specific defects in the human species creating cotteries and fight for monetary resources, created the temporary split between planetary science and all other astronomy. May I also remind of Sun (a decidedly astronomical object in all conceivable meanings) and its huge influence on the chemical constitution of planets in different solar system zones. Rursus 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Lunokhod here.. (as i said below) it is natural to separate things in the Solar system from things not in the Solar system, in the same way it is natural to separate things on Earth from those not on Earth. Mlm42 12:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to retreat on this. I'll archive the proposal and make a new. L8R. Rursus 11:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the proposal in the orange box. I'd be happy with that rather than my proposal. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's still in User:Rursus/Proprs (nickname the orange one), and I prefer it for the next one (Propositio Rursi II – the green one):

{{User:Rursus/Proprs new}}

The disadvantages of this one is that the responsibility of Wikiproject Space will be too extensive, unless the solar system is willing to abstain from the concepts of telescopes, magnitude and spectra to Wikiproject Astronomy only. Collaboration of the week would be duplicate. Since I'm inclined towards the Astronomical Objects only, that would be OK by me – but regarding terms of science: solar system science is astronomy, regarding computer science (I'm an advanced programmer): natural taxonomies are preferrable before unnatural ("natural" referring to natural language English). Rursus 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lunokhod's post of 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC). The problem is that events upset familiar categories. In 1950 the solar system was wholly within the domain of astronomy, but since Sputnik it's also been an increasing element in geo-political / military strategy. At present it's as much part of space travel as of astronomy and in another 50 years it may also be part of economics and engineering. I favour a simple structure for managing space-related topics, but it will always be necessary to be aware of lateral links, and to revise formal organisational structures every few years.Philcha 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the wish list: a decision!

Nothing's happening! Now I can't wait anymore! The mess must be cleaned up, and even though I prefer my proposal, It is better that something is happening, than that my proposal wins. Hereby I withdraw all my own proposals in favor for the current Revised structure. Iff one of my own proposals is sufficiently better than the Revised structure, natural evolution of peoples activities here will successively change the structure towards that proposals in some future. It's important to go on from here, but this or that structure is not that important, IMHO. Are we ready to decide? Rursus 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocketry

While "launch vehicles" was somewhat restrictive, I'm concerned that rocketry, generally speaking, is not a proper subset of Space at all. (Many missiles are rockets. Many other rockets do not reach or attempt to reach space.) And in theory, not all launches are by means of rocketry. (E.g.: elevator contraptions.) Perhaps "launch vehicles" could be replaced with "spacecraft propulsion"? That would include launch, station-keeping, interplanetary propulsion. Sdsds 20:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I want to withdraw the concerns expressed above, and instead express support for the rename: Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch vehicles → Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry. Two lines of reasoning support this rename, one is about the content of the articles and one is about the social aspect of the project. Although not every theoretical launch vehicle is necessarily a rocket, all real-world examples are. If a time ever came, years on the future, when space launches happen by means other than rocketry, that would be the time to reconsider. Until then, space launch is a subset of rocketry. On the other hand, the commonality in technology between launch vehicles and ICBMs is crystal clear. Many, many LVs are derived from ICBMs. From a wiki-social perspective, the LV contributors will benefit from closer interaction with the military history (and current military weaponry) experts. Sdsds 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, the project seems to consider itself responsible for missiles now anyway. I would say it would be better to have just one project handling all rockets (including missiles and rockets that do not reach space) as this will eliminate long term confusion, and hopefully prevent a missiles or sounding rocket project from starting up. A rocketry project could also handle other aspects of rocketry, such as launch sites. Space Elevators are farfetched concepts, do we really need to change the name just for them? I'm sure that a project named "Rocketry" would be just as adapted to handling these as anything else. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

you seem to be implying that they shouldn't be responsible for missiles? is that because missiles aren't technically launch vehicles? in any case, i do agree that the general name "Rocketry" is more appealing.. and although this would mean it's not purely contained within the Space wikiproject, i don't think that's a problem, since at the moment it claims to be descended from the Wikiproject Transport. Also, perhaps they should be collaborating with the fairly large (57 members) Weaponry task force, which includes missiles. Mlm42 09:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I am happy for it to handle missiles, if it doesn't call itself "Launch Vehicles". A collaboration with weaponry could be an option to consider. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that rocketry well can belong to Space, unless there elsewhere is a fanatical rocketry (chemists or military) wikiproject claiming rockets for themselves. If the main use of rockets is atmospheric and space, the connection between rockets and space is good enough. Rursus 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the absense of any further objections, I'm going to notify members and post at RM. Then I'll give it a week, and see what happens. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space missions

I think that Space missions should be kept as a task force under Human Spaceflight. There are over 100 Space Shuttle missions alone, most of which are poorly formatted. Add to that the Apollo, Gemini, Mercury and Constellation missions, plus all the Russian missions, and all the Chinese missions that are going to start going up sometime soon, and I think we need to have something to give them a uniform structure. --Miguel Cervantes 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what the distinction between "Space missions" and "Human spaceflight" would be? any human spaceflight has occurred as a "Space mission", as far as i know.. but perhaps there would be demand for an Apollo task force, or Space Shuttle task force? Mlm42 10:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The "distinction" is that there is a redundant project. We have two projects doing the same thing, so I am proposing that the one with the least ambigous name is kept. Task forces could be set up under the main project to handle different programmes. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, from what I can see, the entire WikiProject seems to be completely paralysed - no-one is maintaining the main page, and nothing has changed since, I believe, August 2006 - as I said on the STS-117 talk page, I think the project should be completely restarted, probably with the task forces suggested, in an effort to breathe some life back into it... Colds7ream 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mars

[edit] mars spacecraft

[edit] Constellations in Astronomical Objects

The proposal says

Wikiproject Constellations becomes the Constellations task force, operating as part of WikiProject Astronomy.

Hmm, the intention is right – constellation works is not an independent interest, it should belong somewhere, but I think it would be more appropriate to put the Constellations task force near Astronomical Objects, not Astronomy unless some other Space group expresses a very deep interest in constellations (Astrology uncounted for, but that's a matter of outgroup coexistence). Rursus 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

To make myself clear: what I say contradict the above proposal to run Astronomical objects as a task force under Astronomy. So I hereby suggest that Astronomical objects is KEPT, since it is active and has a lot of members, its area of responsibility being interstellar space and beyond. I also think that Constellation task force should be NEARBY, for example operating under Astronomical Objects. Rursus 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is WikiProject Space necessary?

(Rursus moved this discussion here because he thought that it belonged to here. Rursus 20:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC))

I don't know. There is a space portal, but this project seems to be redundant with all of the other subtopics, such as solar system, astronomy, and space exploration. Lunokhod 23:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A catch-all term like space that includes astronomy, space exploration and even aviation is way too broad to organize work on articles. Perhaps the Space wikiproject could be a place to describe the results of the reorganization that is being planned here. Sort of a wikiproject disambig to direct editors to the subtopic they are interested in. I'm still not clear on the scope of some of the wikiprojects that are listed above. The Solar System project seems to only include major objects (26 are listed in the assessment box) but there are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of asteroids in the Astronomical Objects project. Also, we should probably update Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science as we go along (which still lists constellations.) --mikeu 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's probably a good idea to have a Space WikiProject, simply to coordinate all of the Space wikiprojects. It isn't clear to a new editor who is working on what, so a general Space WikiProject could point them in the right direction. I think those who are interested in things in Space exploration are likely to also be interested in some topics in Astronomy, and vice versa. Mlm42 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the space wikiproject has been useful as a forum for this reorganization. However, if each wikiproject has the "space wikiproject navigation template" on its main page, is there really much more of a need for coordination? I don't know the answer. I just think that we should do everything possible in order to increase the trafic on those projects that will continue to exist.

I see your point. IMHO, the fact that we ended up with so many overlaping projects is a sign that something is not working. New editors are looking for a project that matches their interests, and not finding an exact match they create a new project. Both the old nav box and WP:Space have been around since Aug. and yet more projects have been created since then. We're not going to get traffic on the remaining projects if people keep creating new ones.--mikeu 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The connection between Space and Astronomy is not that clear, personally I'm generally not at all interested in manned nor unmanned space missions unless they're directed towards solar system explorations and beyond. Telecommunication satellites and space shuttle missions don't bother me a smack – I'm in it for the astronomy, nothing else. If China puts up a taikonaut, it seems to me like some national politics spectacle that has no scientific purpose.

So I adher to the standing point that Space is needed for coordination between Space missions and Astronomy Science. Rursus 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] update

I updated the counts in the member list box. I also moved constellations out from under solar system in the proposed table above.--mikeu 17:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] redirection of talk pages

I've been thinking about how to combine the Moon and Mars projects with the parent Solar System project, and have come up with the following idea: What if we just leave the projects as they are, but redirect the talk pages to the Solar System talk page? (I assume that this is technically possible.) I think the Moon and Mars subprojects are useful, as they track only the related articles, and have done article assessments. If we were to combine all solar system subjects under one banner and assessment scheme, it would be much harder for those who are interested in only improving the lunar and martian pages to do so. As an example, there are about 150 Moon related topics. Lunokhod 10:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we use to have a specific need to be able to filter out every message except those pertaining to a certain topic. That's kind of an information technology problem: what info-hierarchy do we use for which filtering-out, and how do we do the filtering? But on the other hand (this is also a central IT-problem) how do we keep the overview when delving deep in an info-hierarchy? For that question I propose: a Space newsletter group making notes about the events of the week (such as votes, new articles, heroic editor deeds etc.), and a template for interproject surfing. I'll soon make a pröpösäl ... Rursus 20:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure redirecting the talk pages is a good idea; discussions for separate projects, and even task forces, should be kept separate.. otherwise they essentially would become the same project. personally, i'm a big fan of having a big wikiproject, like WP:MILHIST, and several task forces. then things like assessment can be handled in a unified way (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment for awe-inspiring organization). The analogy here could be to have the Space wikiproject the main one, and everything else task forces.. although this seems a little too drastic of a move, since some of the projects are quite well-established. Mlm42 09:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The reasons for redirecting only the talk page would be to help reach a critical mass in active participants. Discussion of the Moon, for examples, clearly falls under the domain of Solar System, and Solar System participants could probably help in addressing lunar issues. Nevertheless, the Moon project page, with its templates, article assessments, to do list, etc., would still remain. In principle I agree with you, but not having a critical mass of participants renders the project useless. Lunokhod 11:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So if you are looking for more participants for the Moon project, then there are several methods of recruitment; alternatively, if you think it would be better to have everyone in a Solar System project discussing Moon issues, then that sounds essentially like a merger, with no need for a separate Moon Wikiproject. All i'm saying is that i believe some (most?) of the main content of a wikiproject exists on its talk page(s), so by removing that feels like it is taking the heart out of the project.. maybe that's just my impression, though. Mlm42 12:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If Moon (or Martian Geography) is merged with Solar System, what should we do about the article assessments? There are about 150 lunar topics (and it looks like the same number for Mars) that have a Moon project banner on them, and which have been assessed in some manner. Do we replace the Moon project banner with the Solar System banner? Or do we keep the lunar project banner on these articles, and keep the "lunar assessments" as is? This would create a multi-tiered assessment scheme for solar system if every planet did the same thing. Lunokhod 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lunokhod here – reaching a critical mass for fusion is necessary for the star to burn ... if you get my point. Requesting a merger between Apis and Musca Borealis on the talk page gave no response, but doing it on the Talk:Astronomical objects gave a fast response, making my editing more confident. Rursus 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps redirecting the talk pages would be a good idea; in any case it's something that isn't difficult to undo. As for the article assessments, 150 articles is a lot to replace, especially with a relatively new Solar System tag. May want to see how the reorganization settles onto before changing around banners. Mlm42 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I like my original proposal anymore. The more I think about it, the more that I think that a "lunar and martian task force", as subpages of Solar system, might be the best solution. The task force subpage would in essence be in charge of article assessments, templates, etc, but all discussions would be given on the main project talk page. Lunokhod 22:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organigram

This is a 20 minute hack. Feel free to change it. I don't think the member count and assessment status are necessary, but we could add them. We could also add links to talk pages, or portals. Lunokhod 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Space WikiProject

Astronomy WikiProject Astronomical objects WikiProject Astronomy collaboration of the week Solar System WikiProject Martian Geography WikiProject Moon WikiProject Space exploration WikiProject Space missions WikiProject Mars spacecraft WikiProject Unmanned space missions WikiProject Launch vehicles WikiProject Timeline of spaceflight WikiProject Human Spaceflight WikiProject Space travellers WikiProject Space colonization WikiProject

OK, I did a similar, but deemed it too big! Something like yours (including the logo), but more compact. I'll think more about how to compress the navbox. Rursus 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another one:

(this is crap soon to be fixed) Space WikiProjects Space (coordinating) Astronomy ★Astronomical objects ☉Constellations Task Force ☍Astronomy collaboration of the week Solar System ★Moon ★Mars Space exploration ★Launch Vehicles/Rocketry ★Human Spaceflight ★Space Colonization ☉Timeline task force ☉Space travellers task force ☉Space missions task force ☍Spaceflight collaboration of the week

but still somewhat too big! What colour scheme shall we use, by the way? Rursus 14:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The color's fine. The green scheme was taken from military history, which is not appropriate here.

Spaceprojnav:

• {{Template:spaceprojnav}}
  • {{Template:astroprojlist}}
  • {{Template:solsysprojlist}}
  • {{Template:spaceprojlist}}

Looks great. I'm not sure if the "project discussion" link is necessary though. Lunokhod 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

THX10³! If not needed, we can just remove it. Rursus 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the above proposal, Solar System is contained in Astronomy, while in these banners this is not the case.. was this intentional? i like the blue colour scheme. Mlm42 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that solar system should be one of the three main categories. Lunokhod 23:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Then Lunokhod, please make a comment about it under the heading Revised structure, so that we treat template design separately from structure revision! Rursus 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The banner is just now in a preliminary state that is to be updated in accord to the proposal. No intentions except as a proof of banner template concept. Rursus 20:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] solar system objects

It looks like all of the articles tagged by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System had already been tagged and assessed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. The solar system topic is obv. broad enough to justify a new wikiproject, but is the plan reassess all of the solar system topic articles? Also, see Category:Solar System articles by quality which has two entries for each class of article ("Solar system" and "Solar System") --mikeu 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the "Solar system" class, simply by uncategorizing the categories. 131.111.24.187 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be rational to transfer all solar system (except Sun) and planetology items to Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects takes care of stars and deep sky. Proplyd and star cribs could be shared. Rursus 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If there was a need, we could create a "sun task force" of solar system; though I am more for consolidation than proliferation... Lunokhod 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Or, let just Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System share the responsibility. Maybe we shouldn't be too territorial? Rursus 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is natural to separate objects in the solar system from objects not in the solar system.. in the same way it is natural to separate objects on Earth and those not on Earth. But at the same time, I don't see a point of WikiProjects being territorial over the overlapping articles. So I'm in favour of the three Astronomy, Solar System, and Space exploration as the main WikiProjects. Mlm42 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for moving the planets, asteroids and comets from astronomical objects to the solar system project. The point I was making above is that starting a new assessment of article quality is a duplication of effort.--mikeu 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving is OK by me, I'm going to visit both projects anyway. Rursus 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomy COTW

Appears rather inactive, with one edit since July last year (9 months). This also looks like a candidate for "reshuffling". Any ideas about what to do with this? MER-C 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

We could rename it "Space Collaboration of the Month". In essence, space is the coordinating project, and one per week does not seem realistic to me. Lunokhod 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Could be a useful idea. If we drop the Spaceflight contribution as well, and just run one. I'll support te propsal. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have two collaborations: a Space missions project, which could get the old Shuttle pages up to standard, and an astronomy collaboration. The astronomy could be for the month, but, since not as much work would be needed, the space missions project need only last a fortninght. Thoughts? --Miguel Cervantes 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template database

Would it be possible to establish a common database for all space-related wikiprojects to share templates in areas where they overlap. This would provide a centralised area for such resources and discussion about them, therby improving the mantainance and upkeep of these templates, and reducing the risk of duplication (I am aware of at least two infoboxes for astronauts that currently exist, and there used to be three for rockets). Also, could/should all userboxes be moved into project or userspace. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be an idea quite in my taste. As discussions are going, the "root" project is to be WikiProject Space, and it would be natural to "place" all templates in Space. Which means: the templates are maintained under the roof of WikiProject Space, the documentation and links to those templates are to be reached from WikiProject Space. Rursus 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already started doing something like this. See Category:Astronomical templates and subcategories, to which I've added as many astronomy-related templates that I can find. If you know of any others, please add them. Mike Peel 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I know about at least the constellation nav boxes. Just a second! Rursus 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ehm, they were already there. I think some more explicit documentation is needed, like Template:WikiProject_Space/Navigation_boxes but regarding other templates. Rursus 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put astronomical templates as a subcategor ofCategory:WikiProject_Space. I agree that they could be better organized. Lunokhod 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was a good initiative. Now, the page Template:WikiProject_Space/Navigation_boxes counterparts Category:Astronomical navigation templates. I'll move the former to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space/Astronomical navigation templates, so that the similarity becomes clearer, and then we may add Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space/Astronomical templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space/Astronomical infobox templates for the counterparting documentation. Rursus 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

D*rn!! I made it wrongly!! Aourrrgh!!

Rursus rages! He'll soon calm down!

Fixup! GGGhrasshoorrrh! Rursus 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Pardon for all inconveniences! Rursus 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to make sure that the documentation for the templates goes either on the template page, or a subpage of the template (transcluded both in the template and this new documentation page). I'd prefer to avoid having duplicate documentation for the different templates - it just complicates matters unnecessarily. Mike Peel 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

By transclusion, maybe? See {{Template:navconstel}} for example. Rursus 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a standard way of doing transclusion of template documentation: see Template:ArticleHistory for an example of it in use. Using that and transcluding it both on the template page and this guide page would seem to me to be the best way to do things. Mike Peel 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that method works only if there's one documentation per template, and I'm having one documentation for four templates. My method seems to be similar, but I may be able to adapt those techniques to the methods used in our templates. The standard seems to be that Template:Gonk is having documentation in Template:Gonk/doc. Rursus 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm!! Somebody seems to have applied the standard method while I was away. Now, the consequence is that the [edit] links doesn't work! Revert please! Rursus 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Øh! Pardon my screaming! It wasn't one of us, I protested on his user page. Rursus 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He fixed it. Rursus 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article assessments

what are current thoughts on article assessments? it seems somehow more organized to have only 3 banners, one for each of Astronomy, Solar System, and Space Exploration, (or whatever the main WikiProjects will be). Then each of these banners could further specify decendant projects or task forces, but would ulitmately have one assessment scheme each. At the moment there seems to be a few redundant assessment schemes and banners which should probably by unified (i.e. Moon and Mars should be unified under Solar System). but i'm not sure how much work such a unification would entail.. Mlm42 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Astronomy and Astronomical Object banners are already unified. The both use Template:WPAstronomy but the latter is tagged with an Object=Yes parameter. Perhaps this could be extended. (ie. Object=moon) I'm not sure that this is desirable, but it might be something to consider. Actually making changes like splitting Solar System articles off from Astronomical Objects will likely require some work. There are a large number of asteroids. Could a bot help with this?--mikeu 17:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Nevertheless, we should be clear that this is probably going to kill off the Moon and Mars projects. These would have to become "task forces" of Solar System, and the old projects will probably just become a subpage containing templates and other things. I don't see the Moon and Mars projects reaching a critical mass anytime soon, and if they do, we can always spin them off again. Perhaps if someone could build the template, this would start to move this from discussion to reality. Lunokhod 18:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear between a "project" and a "task force".. i think i will allow the Solar system banner to include an importance scale.. is that a good idea? Mlm42 18:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, i'm not sure about the importance scale.. the way i've done it is to allow the Moon and Mars projects (/ task forces..) to keep their own importance ratings; it would be difficult to merge these rating since they are so subjective. Mlm42 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging templates

Would it be possible to unite all assessments into one template? {{WPSpace}}, or some such. It could read something along the lines of: "This article is a part of WikiProject Space. The such-and-such taskforce, which is a part of such-and-such sub-project, oversees this article." If several task forces oversee it (Apollo 11, for instance), the template could have room for that. This way we could keep the template standard and easy to change.--Miguel Cervantes 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the suggestion of a unified WikiProject Space template, that would by default have a single assessment, but which (by throwing options) would support the ability for sub-projects to assess e.g. importance independently. So either:

• {{WP Space | class=B | importance=Low}} or
• {{WP Space | class=B | importance=Low | spaceexplorationimportance=Mid}}

would work as expected. The original question, though, remains: "How difficult is that to implement?" And add to that, "Has it already been done somewhere else?" Sdsds 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's a thought.. I like the idea of having one banner. What do others think of this?

In terms of how difficult it is to implement, it would take some time, but ultimately not too difficult.. in the long run a single banner would likely save a lot of work. The military history banner {{WPMILHIST}} has options like this.. although they don't assess article importance to my knowledge, i think something like what Sdsds suggests, where different sub-projects could have their own importance assessment, is possible, and probably a good idea.

Before putting too much work into this, though, we should probably have a clear idea of any further reorganization.. for example, WikiProject Martian Geography recently changed its name to WikiProject Mars, but all the articles are still assessed in Category:Martian geography articles by quality, and it will take some extra work to clean this up. Mlm42 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not merge the WPSpace and WPAstronomy templates - I (and possibly other editors) may have little or no interest in the manned space program but may have a very strong interest in astronomy. I therefore would not find it useful to merge everything under "space". As I have stated before, manned space exploration and astronomy should be maintained as separate topics. They actually have little overlap. Dr. Submillimeter 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

i am aware that some editors have an interest in astronomy and no interest in the manned space program, but i don't see this as a reason not to merge the templates. take, for example, the many branches of WP:MILHIST.. i'm sure there are quite a few editors who aren't interested in every aspect of the project.

I believe one of the benefits of this Space projects' reorganization is to bring together editors who are interested in similar topics. But I don't see how merging the banners would discourage editors who aren't interested in certain topics.. so, i think we could do with a few more opinions about merging the banners.

For clarity, I should say that although the banners would be merged, the article assessments would be kept separate, just like in WP:MILHIST. When, for example, the banner includes Astronomy=yes, then certain options for how the banner looks could be triggered, etc.. the technology is there. Mlm42 16:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with even merging the banners. In real life, most amateur and professional astronomers have little or no interest in manned space organization, and most people involved in manned space exploration have limited experience with or interest in astronomy. (The comparison to military history is inappropriate, as all military historians will have some background in military history subjects by default.) I simply want the subjects kept separate. If you want to merge the templates, you should also discuss the issue with Mike Peel, who created the WPAstronomy template in the first place and who may have some opinions on the subject. Dr. Submillimeter 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what it would mean to merge the banners.. on subjects that are only part of astronomy, the banner could essentially look the same, except with an extra like to the WikiProject Space - is that a bad thing? The article assessments would remain unchanged.. importance ratings could be kept separate - i.e. multiple different importance ratings if an article falls under multiple sub-projects, but a single quality rating. is that unreasonable?

Just because we merge the banners doesn't mean we are merging the subjects.. although i understand there are a lot of articles that do not overlap (most, in fact), one must also note that there are a considerable number that do overlap - hence the desire to merge. Mlm42 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, in the merged banners is the importance rating the same for each wikiproject involved? That is maybe a problem, because the importance of topics will vary between, say jupiter and the moon, but still be relevent to both... sbandrews (t) 17:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If the banner is going to be used for importance ratings, then it definitely should not be used for both manned space exploration and astronomy. Messier 81, for example, would have a negligible importance in terms of manned space exploration but high importance in astronomy (at least professional astronomy). A rating for one project would not be meaningful for another. Dr. Submillimeter 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first had this idea, my thought was that each article could be rated as needed. Messier 81, for instance, would not be part of the Space exploration WikiProject as it currently stands, so there would be no need to rate it for the Manned Space Exploration task force. The ratings would only come into play when two or more task forces have overlapping domains -- my original example, Apollo 11, could fit into the Timeline, Human Spaceflight, and Lunar task forces. Obviously, they have different amounts of importance to each. --Miguel Cervantes 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

that's right, and it's quite possible to assign different importance ratings for the different task forces with the same banner. Mlm42 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh , nvm, I just got round to actually *reading* this thread, doh, i'll get my coat.. sbandrews (t) 19:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections to Template:WPAstronomy being subsumed into a new Template:WPSpace. However, I do have some suggestions:

• Don't use importance ratings. In my experience, they tend to be rather subjective, and I'm always wary of backlash from editors of an article if I say that it's of low importance. Template:WPBiography uses a "priority" flag, which might work well here: see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Priority_scale for an explanation.
• WPAstronomy currently uses flags to identify which projects the page falls under, and the page only appears on the worklists of those projects if appropriate. The exception is that the page falls under astronomy if no flags are set. I would encourage that something like this continues to be the case: all tagged pages would fall under the Space WikiProject; flags would be used to include them in the sub-wikiprojects (e.g. Astronomy, Space Exploration, ...)
• Bear in mind that there's also an interaction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, in that some articles fall under astrophysics, which are covered by both WP Physics and WP Astronomy. There should probably also be links with the Biology and Chemistry wikiprojects too (astrobiology and astrochemistry respectively), but those haven't yet been needed. Coding support for all three of these into the new template might be an idea (suggest using 'astrophysics=yes', 'astrobiology=yes' and 'astrochemistry=yes' flags, so there's the potential for new wikiproject dedicated to those areas to spring up if needed.)
• As I wrote the WPAstronomy template, I'm intimately familiar with how it works. I could fairly easily generalise it to make the WPSpace banner, if people want; at the very least I can play a supporting role in getting the new template working. Mike Peel 13:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Leveraging the work done for Template:WPBiography makes lots of sense, particularly mimicing their use of "priority" rather than "importance". A banner could read, "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space. This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. This article is supported by the Astronomy work group, who give it High priority. This article is also supported by the Space Exploration work group, who give it Mid priority." (The point of a priority is to allow work group members to see where their co-workers feel work most needs to be done. But if the Astronomers don't see any benefit to sharing templates with the Explorers, that's OK too, eh?) Sdsds 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of priority would Arp 220 be given? The general public and amateur astronomers probably care little about the galaxy, but the galaxy is intensively studied by professional astronomers. Dr. Submillimeter 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, yes: an example helps. Thanks for making this clearer. I withdraw my suggestion regarding priority. Also it seems WPBiography has only -- somewhat misleadingly -- renamed importance to priority, without really giving it a new meaning. Sdsds 08:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to argue against the system, but I guess my example did show some POV problems with listing articles by importance. (Arp 220 needs significant expansion in my opinion.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason for the priority terminology for WPBiography is to avoid somebody reading the wikipedia page about themselves and discovering that they are Low-importance! In any case, it should be noted that some subprojects, such as WPMoon and WPMars, are already using an importance scale, and i wouldn't want the new banner to take that away from them. So, i had thought a few subprojects could have importance options while others don't.. i.e. 'Mars-importance=Mid', or 'Moon-importance=High' would be the assessments, and maybe 'importance=Low' would do nothing? Mlm42 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just having one template, why not just modify the individual templates to show they belong to a bigger project called Space - this has the advantage that individual sub projects could still modify their templates to suit their own needs - i.e. have an importance flag or not or make changes in the future - and also allow them to display the image relevent to thier speciality, keeping that personal touch. There would be no need for complicated mars-importance like flags and the wiki-code in the template which is already long and complicated could be prevented from getting any bigger - as it stands it's just about as much as I can decipher, regards sbandrews (t) 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] test template

Rather than talking about this too much, i went ahead and did what i was talking about, so that we can decide whether or not we like it. It's found at {{WPSpace}}.. i haven't finished implementing all the possible projects, but to do so won't be much work. See User:Mlm42/test for an example that shows everything i have done.. i believe it adds the correct categories, and each related project can have their own little image, and the projects with importance ratings can add those as well. let me know what you think. Mlm42 11:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have several requests for modifications:

• Please use lower-case words for the variables (in line with the majority of templates here)
• I personally prefer underscores (_) rather than dashes (-) to separate phrases, but that's just a personal opinion.
• Please rename the "physics" tag to "astrophysics", and if possible add "astrochemistry" and "astrobiology".
• The other wikiprojects also need to have flags added.

As a thought, it should be possible to create redirects to the template from the existing templates, to save having to replace them all. I'll try writing something to do that when this template's progressed a bit further. Mike Peel 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

i've changed to lower-case variables, and renamed physics to astrophysics (although, there doesn't appear to be an astrophysics project?). other projects' flags are still to come.. what do you mean about the underscore/dashes? are you refering to the mars-importance and moon-importance variables?

that's a really good idea about the redirect; it would probably make for a smooth transition.. as long as people are happy with having a single banner? i thought it was still a bit up in the air whether we are going forward with this.. Mlm42 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer 'astrophysics' to 'physics' as Template:Physics exists, which this template doesn't replace (although it does supplement it). That's in contrast to, say, "astronomy", which doesn't have its own template. Plus, it makes it easier in the future if an astrophysics project is set up.

With underscores vs. dashes, I was referring to "astro_object" vs. "astro-object". The same would apply to the importance flags. It's only a minor point, though. Both are in common usage, I believe; I just prefer underscores.

It seems pointless to have multiple templates doing the same job; I can't see any reason for keeping {{WPAstronomy}} around if we have something like {{WPSpace}}. Of course, whether or not {{WPSpace}} is put into use is still up for decision.

Assuming that we do use WPSpace, I've set the code up for a WPAstronomy redirect at User:Mike Peel/template2; see [1] for an example of it in use. Once WPSpace is ready to go, then this code can replace that currently at WPAstronomy (with an explanation of what it does). It would be easy to set up similar redirects for the other existing templates. Mike Peel 00:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, well as far as i can tell, the new banner now has the same (in fact more) functionality of {{WPAstronomy}}, {{WPSS}}, {{WPMoon}}, {{WPMars}} and {{WP Space exploration}}.. did i miss any? Unless i'm mistaken, it's good to go.

i've only added the subprojects which have an assessment scheme already set up. We could also add other projects, such as the Constellations task force, or Timeline of Spaceflight, or Launch vehicles, but before doing so, should we consider setting up an assessment scheme for them at the same time? (indeed, assessments for WikiProject Space isn't set up yet) Mlm42 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

although it can be easily changed back, i've replaced {{WP Space exploration}} with {{WPSpace}} everywhere.. hopefully this won't break everything :S Mlm42 01:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I wonder about the wording, though. Currently the banner might read, "Top Space exploration-Importance". I would have expected maybe, "Space-exploration Importance: Top". (Thinking this was an easy modification I peeked at the template code, but couldn't figure out which hyphens were part of the generated text and which were part of variable names.) Sdsds 07:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

i think that's done now.. had to make some new templates, but i think it works. Mlm42 10:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Submillimeter has expressed concern that the first link on the banner is WikiProject Space, which perhaps isn't to most direct route to answer somebody's question. For example, if the article were covered under Astronomy, perhaps having a WikiProject Astronomy link first would be better? Mlm42 17:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private space exploration

Are articles on private space exploration within the scope of the WikiProject? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. All space-related topics are (or at least should be). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of topics which would more suitably be categorized as "Space commercialization" as opposed to "Space exploration." Almost by definition, many of the private space efforts are among those, i.e. they are operated with little government funding and hope to be commercially successful. The biggest segment of "space commercialization" right now is surely satellite telecommunication. Personally, I would like to see WikiProject Space reorganized along tripartite lines: Astronomy, Exploration, and Use, where "Use" could be further subdivided into commercial, military, and scientific uses. Sdsds 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)