Portal talk:Spaceflight
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Space. | |
| Related projects: | ||
 |
WikiProject Spaceflight | Importance to Spaceflight: Top |
 To-do list for Portal:Spaceflight: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
 Archives |
|
Space exploration |
|
|
|
| Selected article |
|
| Selected picture |
|
| Selected biography |
|
| On This Day |
|
| Did you know |
|
Contents |
[edit] Changes
Several things. Firstly, I've added a status indicator, which displays alerts when there is content missing from the portal. Critical is displayed when content is actually missing (eg. there is no selected article for the current week). Warning is displayed when the queue for content is nearly empty. In the case of something which is updated monthly, this means there is no content for the next month. In the case of something which is updated more frequently, this means there is no content for the next week. Nominal means that it does not really need attention. The template is also designd so that anybody involved in maintaining the portal can place a copy on their userpage, should they wish. It might also be a good idea to ask a few of the related wikiprojects to take a copy. The code to add it is {{Portal:Spaceflight/Status|align=|colour=|colourname=|width=}}. All parameters are optional. The "align" parameter can be set to "left", "right", or "center", "colour" is a hexadecimal RGB value for the background colour, "colourname" is the name of the desired background colour (eg. Red). Seeing as both "colour" and "colourname" do the same thing, only one should be set (if any). Width is the width of the box in pixels (there is no need to add "px" to the end). Note that the biography section is currently displaying "critical", not because there is a problem, but simply because the section has yet to be reconfigured for automatic rotation.
Secondly, seeing as it was so rarely updated, I've automated the selected picture system, in the hope that it will at least provide some variety in what is displayed. I intend to do the same with the selected biography section soon. I have also switched the selected article system from standard years to ISO years, which will prevent the problem seen over the last few days of 2007, where the portal attempted to call Week 1's article (which didn't exist). Finally, I have restarted the "on this day" project, which was proposed, started and died in late 2006. This is intended as a daily system to replace the current "selected anniversaries". See Portal:Spaceflight/On This Day and Portal:Spaceflight/On This Day/Index. I would appriciate some feedback on this before it gets much further, as I don't want to complete it and then find out that it is not wanted. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have now converted the selected biography to rotate as well. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 10:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed we've had the same did you know... section for three days short of two years. I have set it to rotate as well, and am about to add it to the status indicator. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is done. It updates fortnightly, status warning one month in advance. I've also replaced the "things you can do" section with a direct transclusion of the to do list. It looks exactly the same, but is much more accessible. In addition, I have vectorised the logo image, which improves quality when viewed at resolution other than default, and loading time. The filename for the vectorised logo is Image:RocketSunIcon.svg (on Commons). Finally, I would like to raise a couple of issues. The left column is too long, and the right one is too short. We need to either move content from left to right, or add something new to the right column. Any ideas? Finally, I think the WikiProjects box looks ugly, and needs to be changed. How about a simple list of projects, without the purple box? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- About "on this day". It's empty starting tomorrow. I really like the idea and I think we should continue it. What sort of technique did you use to gather jan. 1 trough 12 ? I might be able to tackle a couple of days. Contribute a bit :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've writing brief entries for all orbital launches, and other significant events. I would appriciate it if tomorrow's section is left empty for now, as it is the only item which is not currently being displayed, so I am using it to test the status indicator. As for sources, http://www.astronautix.com/thisday/index.htm contains a lot of information. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, the test was successful, so addition of content can resume. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- About "on this day". It's empty starting tomorrow. I really like the idea and I think we should continue it. What sort of technique did you use to gather jan. 1 trough 12 ? I might be able to tackle a couple of days. Contribute a bit :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The status indicator doesn't seem to like leap years. It is currently giving a warning for OTD, but OTD is fine. I cannot find the cause of the bug, but I suspect it is leap-year related, and if this is the case, it will only happen for one week every four years, so there isn't much point wasting time with debugging it.--GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Revisiting merger proposals
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Result of the proposal was to merge - GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. A while ago it was proposed that this portal be merged into Portal:Space exploration. I opposed this proposal because at the time it seemed that the two portals were too spread out in scope. At the time, however, Portal:Space Exploration was quite new, and I didn't know exactly what they were planning to do with it. Now that Portal:Space Exploration has grown, I can see that there is far more overlap than I first anticipated. Therefore, I would like to reopen discussion of a merger, however my proposal is, that since Space exploration is a subsection of spaceflight, and not the other way around, Portal:Space exploration would be merged into Portal:Spaceflight, with preservation of all content from both portals. This proposal would result in one portal which is more managable, and with greater numbers of people to maintain and use it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I support it. I have always thought that it is better to have one more general but well managed portal than 2 portals that operate at less than half speed (in the case of this one even less than quarter speed :D ) --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - As stated in the previous discussion, I think we really should merge Portal:Space Exploration and Portal:Spaceflight. Whether the end product is called Spaceflight or not, I do not care much. What I would ask though, is that non-manned space ventures, for example just simple GPS satellite do stay in scope of the new portal. The technology of space was the main object of the work on Portal:Space Exploration and I would hate to loose that after all the work. Awolf002 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is exactly why I think it would be better to use spaceflight rather than space exploration, as spaceflight is the more general term, encompassing the entire area of the use of space as well as its exploration, as opposed to space exploration, which implies only the exploitative aspects thereof. In short, this portal currently gives unmanned spaceflight more coverage than space exploration does, and this would be carried forward to the combined portal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 02:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Of course there are many definitions of terms like "spaceflight" and "space exploration." As I see it, things and people are sent into space for three primary reasons: for the (scientific) exploration of space, for the (financial-gain oriented) commercializaion of space, and for the (strategic power-motivated) militarization of space. All three of these can involve both missions with crews and missions that are purely robotic. I do see "spaceflight" as being primarily about the process of sending people and things into space, and not (so much) about the motivations for sending them. As regards combining efforts on these two portals ... I have no strong opinions either way. (sdsds - talk) 07:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reject The two portals border each other, but seem to have zero overlap both in terms of content and in terms of context. One is about flight, the other is about scientific discovery. They are *not* the same, any more than air flight and antarctic exporation are the same thing.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am more than slightly confused by your analogy, not to mention your argument. Let's look at it carefully. Half the content on SE has nothing to do with exploration: "Thuraya 3 on Zenit 3SL rocket." - that's a comsat. What has that got to do with exploration? Satellite Instructional Television Experiment is listed in "Did You Know?" - what has that got to do with exploration? What has Doppler spectroscopy got to do with exploration? The selected article here is reguarly exploration-related. What do Satellites have to do with exploration? Last month, SE's selected article was Energia. That is SF's current SA. Quite apart from the fact that a rocket is, itself, not involved in conducting the "exploration", this points to an overlap. Less than half the SAs listed are relevant to SE. Several have been duplicated by both portals. The space exploration portal has no idea what space exploration is. It is trying to do everything this portal does, and I can see no logical argument against merging it into this one. One well maintained portal is much better than two poorly maintained ones which thanks to a poor definition of "space exploration" overlap in their entirity, as we have here. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I stopped updating Portal:Space exploration in order to not get in the way of the merger. If the merger is on hold, I will go in and fix a few things. Anybody? Awolf002 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think that GW_Simulations figured that a reasonable large time to discuss this might be prudent, probably taking in mind the rather large discussions that followed the WikiProject Space mergers last year. If you want to update a few things, you are more than welcome I think. Shall we set a targetdate to do the merger ? I propose 18 january (which would be exactly 2 weeks after the initial proposal. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Question: I am curious, what would the lead section of the combined portal say? (sdsds - talk) 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was just holding back a few days because we don't have a 100% consensus. The date I set was only for if the proposal was unopposed. I'll just give it a few days to see if anyone else votes, but as things stand, we are still go to merge the portals at some time in the next week or so. I have drafted a new lead section:
 |
Spaceflight is the movement of spacecraft into and through outer space, primarily using rocket technology for propulsion. Spaceflight is used in space exploration, the endeavour to reach, explore, and exploit the space outside the Earth's atmosphere, and also in commercial activities like space tourism and satellite telecommunications. It is generally based on the use of rockets to transport machines, animals, and humans to, and subsequently through, space. Additional non-commercial uses of spaceflight include space observatories, reconnaissance satellites and other earth observation satellites. Objects launched into space may follow a Sub-orbital trajectory and return to Earth immediately, stay in orbit around Earth, travel in the space between the planets, or aim to leave the space dominated by the Sun completely.
(more...)
|
 |
I hope this is useful, any suggestions for improvement? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've started work on a draft of what the combined portal would look like. See User:GW_Simulations/SpaceflightPortal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
[edit] Further discussion
[edit] Rotation intervals
- Copied from my talk page:
Hi! I would suggest to adjust the schedules of the "selected" items, after I gained some experience running the Portal:Space exploration by myself for "forever": Images are much easier to come by than articles! Cycle the "selected image" once per week, and cycle articles/bios once a month. Also, I experimented with the "random" feature on the portal, and this may be something useful for the merged portal, as well.
-
- -- Comment left by Awolf002
- My reply, copied from User talk:Awolf002
I think the exact rotation spans would be best discussed at Portal talk:Spaceflight, but in my opinion, it would be best to have both the selected article and picture rotating weekly, and the biographies monthly. I agree with your comment about pictures being easier to rotate, and so I think that it would be a good idea to rotate these on a weekly basis, however I think that there should be no problem with keeping the article rotation weekly as well. In my experience at Portal:Spaceflight, there's been no problem in keeping the page up-to-date, and we've only missed one week since around this time last year. With the status indicator which I have developed, it should be easy to prevent this happening again. Assuming the merger goes ahead, which seems very likely, we will presumably have a few more people working on the portal, making it easier to maintain. Randomisation may be something to look at for the "did you know..." section.
I am copying this here as I feel this is the best place to discuss it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 19:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the status indicator helps a lot! Let's try for awhile to see if we can keep up the pace! (sdsds - talk) 06:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
