Talk:List of space agencies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Top

Contents

[edit] Budget

The credibility of the budget comparison on the bottom of the page is very low without sources. Sources should be added or the section should be removed. MikkelR 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erased publicity for some band

"Artistic space agencies"... erased


[edit] This list looks longer...

http://rhea.la.asu.edu/spl/data_resources/space_agencies/

Though it lacks any detailed information.

Another good source. Chadlupkes 03:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge duplicate articles

Space Agency and Space agency are duplicate articles, I'll try to merge them later, unless someone wants to do it first. - Rudykog 13:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Great, right after I merge them, I find that there is a category for space agencies... - Rudykog 19:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Great work!! Chadlupkes 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CSA

Croatian Space Agency, mentioned on the site, is not a space agency, it's rather a some kind of astronomical society. So, it should not be on this list. It's not a government agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.142.202 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan Space Program

Removed vandalism.

[edit] Israeli 1.25 billion USD budget is ridiculous

This is an overstatement by more than 1000 times. The current budget of the Israeli Space Agency is a bit of one million USD. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] implicit colour scheme

i suppose the colour scheme is implicitly implying that "manned space flight" implies "launch capability" which implies "operates satellites"? perhaps something like "manned space flight + launch capability + operates satellites" would make this explicit. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. Thanks for making the correction. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] refs column

i'm not sure the purpose of the Ref(s) column? there is already a website column; if there is a specific fact that should be cited in the table, then shouldn't the citation be next to that fact, rather than in a separate column? the way it is makes it unclear what the references are referencing. 82.6.96.66 (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe... I was concerned that it might make the table too messy, with numbers scattered everywhere. Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colour scheme

I don't like the colour scheme for the different capabilities. I think a sortable table with the different options as Yes/No boxes in columns would look a lot nicer. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But then the table would be getting rather wide... Mike Peel (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The wikicode is limiting it to 100% of the page. If the country flags were removed, the founded date was only the year, the terminated column (which has very few entries) was removed, and the refs column had no "citation needed" the table could adequately accommodate three new y/n columns. This plan will sacrifice very little info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)