Portal talk:Spaceflight/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Black background

  • I realize space is mostly dark, and it looks great in space, but the black background doesn't look good and probably never will because the images and other elements aren't designed to go on a black background. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, the link text is almost impossible to make out. --BazDM 15:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Changed - Is the new version any better? --GW_Simulations 14:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the current layout / color scheme is still rather garish. The yellow is too bright.01:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Changed it again, without seeing a need for prior discussion. (Sorry!) The changes were minor: titlebars are now "darkest midnight blue" and borders are "deep space deep purple". Barely noticable to my eye, but then again age-related blindness may have already set in! Sdsds 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of Portal

Am wondering what the purpose of this Portal is. Is it for Spacecraft or Spaceflight? Spacecraft as a Portal should detail the actual crafts that have been constructed, Spaceflight should be more about the missions and the actions surrounding the actual flights of said spacecraft. Yet in the heading it describes this portal as being about the spacecraft. I am going to change the term to spaceflight and create a separate Portal for Spacecraft. --Exodio 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose to merge these two topics into "Space Exploration". Actually, I did not know this portal existed until I started Portal:Space Exploration (dang!). The motivation came from a Portal:Astronomy discussion about the delineation of those topics. Well, I now wonder what would be the right way to merge these portals. Awolf002 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out WikiProject Space for a listing of Portals and Wikiprojects related to space. You should pay attention to naming conventions - it should technically be Portal:Space exploration (no caps). Good format, would you consider doing it in black with the Portal:Space formatting that already exists? If so, I will help you convert it. I would like to try getting all space related portals with the same look and same formatting for ease of changing stuff up. I like your Portal, BTW --Exodio 00:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this portal has too much overlap with the Portal:Space exploration to be useful; it should focus more on the mechanics of spaceflight, and engineering behind it, launch vehicles, etc, but then a more appropraite name would be Portal:Spacecraft as suggested above. the name Spaceflight suggests too much to human activity of flying through space, which should really be until Portal:Space exploration. sorry for the rant, but those are my thoughts. Mlm42 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

or, better still, Portal:Space technology would be an all-encompassing title for what i believe this portal is after. then it is clear that the focus is on the technical aspects rather than the exploration of space. Mlm42 07:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The way I look about it, this portal is about up and coming spaceflights. Space technology is about how rockets and space stations and so forth are put together, and doesn't have any particular newsiness associated with it.WolfKeeper 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Space Exploration is about exploring other planets like Mars rovers and so forth. YMMV.WolfKeeper 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, okay; so would it be a reasonable plan to merge to rename the Portal:Space exploration to Portal:Space technology, and merge any Space exploration stuff into this portal, Spaceflight?
I don't think so. You'd be making a category mistake. Spaceflight can be a component of space exploration, but it's definitely not a kind of space exploration, so it's not really very appropriate to have them in the same article. I don't understand why you want to merge everything.WolfKeeper 18:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason that i want to merge things is because if you look at Portal:Space exploration and Portal:Spaceflight, they look almost the same. They are redundant.. that's why people merge things. and that's why something needs to be re-organized, and/or renamed. Mlm42 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The other way to remove redundancy is to... remove the redundancy. I think that stuff needs to be removed from the space exploration portal; for exmaple, the list of spaceflights is inappropriate, most of the flights are nothing whatsoever to do with exploration.WolfKeeper 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Then the technical aspect, of launching, propulsion, etc, would be under Space technology, and missions and things would be here at Spaceflight? of course there would still be overlap.. and we would need to define more clearly how it should be split. Mlm42 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with WolfKeeper. Exploration in NASA's view right now maybe be about the Moon and Mars, but I would suggest the New Horizons mission is about exploration just the same. Awolf002 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, space exploration suggests something specific and somewhat non-permanent. i mean, if spaceflights to the moon become commonplace, then you could hardly consider them Space exploration. The only alternatives that come to mind are Spaceflight, or perhaps Space travel. Mlm42 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
TV satellites are not exploration, but they are spaceflight.WolfKeeper 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Awolf002 that I don't think that New Horizons is exploration!WolfKeeper 18:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread your comment. It sounded to me like you were restricting "exploration" to exploring planets. Awolf002 00:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what definition of "exploration" you're using, but a mission labelled "New Horizons" suggests that there will be some kind of exploring going on..Mlm42 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Careful here, you misread me. In English a double negative is a positive (mostly).WolfKeeper 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
but it doesn't matter what technically counts as Spaceflight and as Space exploration, the point is that we want titles that will instantly make people think of what we want them to think. what will the word Spaceflight mean to most people? Mlm42 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Flying in space?WolfKeeper 22:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, are we in agreement that Space exploration is a subset of Spaceflight?

I don't think so any more than Hawaii holiday is a subset of 'flying'.WolfKeeper 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If so, then perhaps we should rename the Space exploration portal to something like Space technology..

Technology is the knowledge of how to do something. Exploration isn't a technology; there's a big difference between an is-a relationship and a contains or uses relationship. Exploration uses space technology, but isn't a technology or set of technologies, and not all space technologies are to do with exploration. Space Exploration uses spaceflights, but not all spaceflights are to do with exploration. These are all different concepts. I think the one-article, one-concept idea is powerful, and the fundamental idea behind an encyclopedia. Who exactly is really getting confused by there being more than two portals?WolfKeeper 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

then that could be a sub-portal to Portal:Technology, and this would be a subportal of Portal:Transport, and both would be subportals of Portal:Space.. does that make sense? Mlm42 08:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, we are currently anywhere near to merging these portals, instead we are trying to clarify the scope of each of them. I was the culprit of starting Portal:Space exploration (as described above) without knowing about this portal. The aim was to have place to bring together the technological aspect of various topics related to Space, and it seems I chose the wrong name. Should we have a portal Portal:Space technology to address this? And possibly keep the other two and re-arrange their content? Does not sound too bad... Awolf002 22:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, so I think having a Space technology portal is a good idea, and a Spaceflight portal is good.. but what would be the purpose of a Space exploration portal then? I mean, i understand the concept of Space exploration differs from the other two, and i suppose one could argue that there are other ways to explore space than through Spaceflight.. but is it sufficiently different to warrant a separate portal? I mean, there's no Holiday portal, to use Wolfkeeper's analogy.. Mlm42 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

ISS peer review

A request has been made for International Space Station to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of the article. // Duccio (write me) 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

I would be inclined to oppose a merger with Portal:Space Exploration for now. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked about the situation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals, and both of the two responses seemed quite in favour of merging them together. They say "One really great portal with a lot of content is much better than three average (or in the case of Space, below average) portals."
They suggest making Portal:Space the destination of the merger, since it is sufficiently general, and would probably imply to most people something different from Astronomy.
Personally, I'd be quite happy if we could settle on Portal:Space and put all our efforts into that, rather than spreading effort and content across multiple portals. Mlm42 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's wait for some more feedback, we just got two voices in that discussion. Awolf002 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that the topics are spread out enough, so I am opposing the proposal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

portal organization

I was thinking of improving the selected content boxes, so that they change on a weekly basis, and came up with a sketch of how to lay out the three Space-related portals.. i was thinking:

Portal:Spaceflight:

  • Selected article (weekly)
  • Selected spacecraft (weekly)
  • Selected biography (weekly)
  • Selected anniversaries (monthly)
  • Upcoming launches (on-going)
  • Current spaceflights (on-going)

Portal:Space:

  • Selected article (weekly)
  • Selected mission (weekly)
  • Selected biography (weekly)
  • Selected anniversaries (daily)
  • Space News (on-going)
  • Current spaceflights (on-going) [exact copy as other portal]

Portal:Space exploration:

  • Selected article (weekly)
  • Selected picture (weekly)
  • Selected astronaut (weekly)
  • Selected anniversaries (monthly)
  • Space News (on-going) [exact copy]
  • Current spaceflights (on-going) [exact copy]

How does that sound? thoughts? should the news sections be distinct? i.e. each updated independently, or all from the same source? Mlm42 11:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you have too many 'weekly' periods. If we want to select the best articles/biographies from mostly the 'featured' list, then we can only do this on a monthly basis. Secondly, daily anniversaries? I need to scan the general daily list, but this also sounds too ambitious! And, I still do not see the motivation of 'astronaut' biographies on Space exploration, it seem to fit better under Space flight. I'm still undecided on the Current space missions in anything but the Sapceflight portal or in more places... Awolf002 18:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I am working on making Selected anniversaries daily - a long process, it should be kept at monthly untill this is finished. I would also like to keep the Spaceflight news alive, but with distinct criteria for inclusion. Possibly "this month's launches" or similar. In addition, I think there should be a selected picture on each portal, but again, this should be within some form of predefined limits. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about having a Selected picture in each portal; if we were to make "predefined limits", i would have guessed for Spaceflight the picture would be of, say, a spacecraft, which is why i thought Selected spacecraft would be appropriate.
And where are you working on making the Selected anniversaries daily, so that i can help out? Mlm42 07:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been doing it offline so as to keep all the files in one place and not to clutter up the portal. I'll upload a few as an example, probably tonight. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, If you meant which portal, this one. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that having weekly (or perhaps better monthly at this stage) biographies in the "Space exploration" portal, but I strongly object to having them be limited only to astronauts. It seems to me that the topic is broader than that, and there are plenty of interesting characters other than astronauts who have been involved in the space program. (I'm biased of course, since I've been writing about them, but still...) MLilburne 12:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Space

i'm experimenting with the idea of tabs at Portal:Space.. although some people are opposed to merging portals, my hope is that this portal will be able to merge Portal:Spaceflight, Portal:Space exploration, and Portal:Astronomy.. the reason for merging is that i believe there is a fairly high probability that a reader interested in one of those portals, will be interested in the other two. since there is a good amount of overlap of content as well, rather than dividing the portals up with a razor sharp knife, it seems more benificial to merge them. does anyone have comments or suggestions? Mlm42 16:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. I was here as a Wikipedian for quite a while before I even discovered that the other portals existed, so anything that will make them easier to find from one another is a good idea in my book. Personally my top choice would be to merge Spaceflight and Space exploration, but I'm prepared to get behind any sort of reasonable compromise. MLilburne 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if a merger is a good idea, and I would like to see a demonstration (in userspace) before I support any such proposal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
well, i've been trying to put something together at Portal:Space; i don't see a need to use userspace first? Mlm42 15:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you meant to integrate content from here first. Obviously I was wrong, so I am going to have to Oppose the proposal per my concerns in earlier discussions on this subject. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated /Intro

I updated the /Intro component of the portal, using material from the current version of the Spaceflight article's lead. This is my first edit of a portal. Is there some proper procedure I should have followed? Sdsds 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new selected article

I propose to change the "Selected article" from Apollo 11 to Orion (spacecraft). Any objections? Sdsds 01:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't!. The system is automatic. If you look at Portal:Spaceflight/Selected article, you will see that there is a cue of articles. Instead, please can you create an article about Orion Here, and it will appear as the selected article next week. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Slick! I started late and flailed a bit, but it seems like I've managed something functional (and even used that cool template). Thanks for your help! Sdsds 16:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
And looking ahead, it seems next week might be the 5-year anniversary of, The Slowest and Fastest Train in the Universe. That would be counting its birth as the delivery of the Mobile Transporter by STS-110. Can I nominate something related to that for Week 14? Or am I getting greedy? Sdsds 18:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Portals are fun

I just want to share with y'all how much fun I've been having over the past weeks hacking away at various components of Portal:Spaceflight. It has been a great place for me to learn a bit about how portals work, and what it takes to maintain one. So: thanks for bearing with my attempts here as I've slowly climbed the portal learning curve! What amazes me most is that there aren't lots of other people who want to have this kind of fun. Where are all the budding young rocketry students who could by vying for a chance to control what goes into the portal? (That question is only semi-rhetorical. ;-) I guess there's still a lot to learn about how to promote a community of portal users and contributors. Any suggestions on how to go about that? Sdsds 03:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Assistance with Portal Spaceflight biographies

I'm requesting at Portal talk:Biography assistance with the Portal:Spaceflight biography section, and directing comments about that request here. (Sdsds - Talk) 01:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The only featured articles that really fit into this category are Chris Kraft, Glynn Lunney and Joseph Francis Shea, all written almost entirely by yours truly. The articles on Wernher von Braun and Neil Armstrong are good, but not FA quality. Everything else is really B-class or below. You can take a look at Space exploration articles by quality to get at least a sense of what's out there. We need to do better, I think. MLilburne 16:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about this portal

This portal is being discussed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/Reorganisation#Portal:Spaceflight. Input from people who participate in this portal is welcome. — Pious7 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NASA flight controller biographies

I recently added Don Puddy to WP as a mere stub and a humble one at that. Just wondering if there is interest in creating something more for WP in terms of biographies on flight controllers at NASA? —Gaff ταλκ 06:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've certainly focused on flight controllers in my time at Wikipedia. What kind of "something more" were you thinking? MLilburne 07:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Key topics box

I added a "Key topics" box right near the top of the portal page, because Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines says linking to important topics is required for a portal. Although the Intro box (above key topics) links to some important spaceflight topics, it can't link to them all! (sdsds - talk) 04:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)