Talk:da Vinci Project

2009 talk

some of this page seems a little too PRish

Yeah, it needs some work. It's on my to-do list. aremisasling (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't everything in this article be changed to the past tense?

Yeah.

The Da Vinci project is history, being a project that never 'took off'.

I've contacted Feeney about the status of DVP/DreamSpace. As the article currently notes, it was actively developing hardware in late '08, so although the website is stale, the dreamspace website is dead and gone, and the news trail has gone silent, there may still be some life left in there. If there are any official announcements of DVP's demise let me know. I'm maintaining the List of private spaceflight companies and it could use some updated info. aremisasling (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Feeney told me by email that his project, under the Dreamspace banner is moving forward according to plan. I've requested citable sources from him as I'm having trouble finding them myself. aremisasling (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it unlikely things are moving according to plan, since no clear plan has been articulated, and all previous major status communications seem to have been inaccurate. On a similar note, an "official" announcement of the project's demise seems unlikely, since it was a volunteer effort from the start, and always vaguely defined. In more established space organizations with employees, payrolls and (sometimes) official investors, their termination of operations followed a more established process, as with Rotary Rocket Inc. Based on past history, it seems probable the project will continue to exist as long as Mr. Feeney is around to respond to emails, with the odd press announcement citing a forthcoming objective that will "soon be achieved". I know that sounds harsh, though that is not my intention. If verifiable material is not forthcoming -- and verifiable does not mean an announcement from Mr. Feeney -- it would be prudent to change this article to the past tense, or at least change the editorial tone of the article to reflect the highly uncertain status. Perhaps we should give it another couple of months, then make substantial edits and reductions. 19 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.184.219 (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Status of DVP and reference tags

This article does need references, but those references are currently hard, if not impossible to come by. I have been reassured by Mr. Feeney that there will be more progress announcements later this year. In interest of both maintaining verifiability and preserving content for future validation, I propose that any removals due to ref issues be moved to the talk page instead of deleted as there may be more sources available shortly. I'm taking the private space pages on as a personal project so at some point I'll move on from my pet project at the List of private spaceflight companies and start a cleanup here and on the other priv-space pages. aremisasling (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Following up on the disputes banners

I am following up on the disputes banners on top of the da Vinci Project Wikipedia page. The information is accurate as presented (I - Brian Feeney - did not create the original article - don't know who did - I did update it a few times for accuracy. The update I gave including stating near the top of the page was that the da Vinci Project was no longer active.

To make things clear:

The da Vinci Project is no longer operating. There will be NO updates publicly on the da Vinci Project as it is no longer operating as stated (there is nothing to update). The da Vinci Project website including gallery etc will remain online as an historical reference site. It will no longer be updated either though it may get cleaned up (easier to navigate and improved gallery - if I can find someone to spend the time to do so). ^{(previous unsigned comment was made by IP-user 99.226.147.82 (talk)) on 2010-02-28 and 2010-12-11. The comment as of 2010-12-11 is the net of three edits to the Talk page; more detailed info is available if you look at each edit individually, via the Talk page history.)}

Hi 99.226.147.82 (Brian Feeney???). Welcome to Wikipedia. I sincerely appreciate your edits and additions to this article and this Talk page. Since Wikipedia has no way of knowing who is who amongst its editors, it does not try to ascertain veracity of identities, and really has no good way of doing so. Wikipedia does however deal in verifability. If you can help by adding reliable secondary sources and good citations to the material in the article, that material may very well be able to stay in Wikipedia over the longer term in order to document an historical project. Otherwise, most/much of the challenged material (see the many ^{{{citation needed}}} tags will be removed from Wikipedia simply because it is not verifiable. I have written some additional information on your personal Talk page. Yours for a better Wikipedia encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)