Talk:International Space Station/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Just a little rant

I guess it deserves an explanation, the silly quotes in this ref like "If you send two people to Mars one will die," and the text in the article saying some new technology is needed to improve shielding, like people haven't heard of thicker shielding and architecture designed for this purpose, I mean it's quite ridiculous. Most sources would dispute that one. Penyulap _talk 03:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

New section "Christmas on the International Space Station"

I've created a new section for the article, that appears at Christmas when such material is notable, and not at other times of the year, when people probably won't care. The section without it's heading is at Template:Christmas on the International Space Station and please do add, edit and so forth. Ignore the warnings you will see about references, when it goes into the article they show up normally if they are done in the usual way. Anyhow, it all works although I will no doubt improve it's technical implementation, and might get help from others too. Or just go ahead and delete the lot if you feel the urge to ! whatever. Temporarily there is a way to view it on my talkpage ISS workspace, but I'll copy it out of there soon if it looks like a good idea, to aid in editing. Penyulap _talk 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

woops, it's gone live sooner than I thought, thanks to technical help, and another take on which days are good, I'd better spruce it up, it was just example stuff really. Any comments on this section? Penyulap _talk 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've just reminded another editor, notability is not temporary, so if it is not notable enough to include year-round then I don't think it would be notable enough to include just over Christmas. Instead, how about just mentioning any specific celebrations in any given year in the article about the expedition then occupying the station. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 13:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A very good idea, but I'm lazy to do the first part, adding it to those articles, and although I am not into protesting I certainly want to occupy the station, sign me up for sure !! Penyulap _talk 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

See, this is one of those quiet, insane scientist moments, when you've electro-jolted the monster and it has vital signs and you just wait to see what it does. Like, that Falcon idea just got up and ran out to pillage, probably smashed the pop-culture glass window on it's way out I dunno, I heard something break. Much better than the green monster with tentacles that got kneecapped instantly and totally died in the a**, and with good reason too I might add. But the External links monster idea was hilarious, just as soon as I had put the electrical cables down on the bench it picked up the remote control and started watching TV like it had been there the whole time. We could easily kill this Christmas monster right now if I helped you and told you where to aim the shotgun, but I figure on waiting to see if more than just the two other editors who are helping with it turn up. It'll take a while as the whole thing disappears until maybe for a day in January for orthodox Christmas ? what do you think GW ? It has vital signs, but it's just sitting there blinking, we could kill it now, or let it be, either way. What does everyone else think ? I reckon it can't go the usual sub-article with a set amount of real estate, cause who wants to know about it the rest of the year ? I mean who has a Christmas tree in their house in March ? Am I wrong ? anyone ?

Anyhow this all just points out the need to explain cultural differences of the crews on the ISS, I mean, Mission control in Moscow(I'm arbitrarily assigning blame here) approved the funding and 'upmass' and sent up those Yellow work hats for the lads to wear whilst they do their real and proper work on the ISS, and well, nobody except me seems to understand the whole point of it. I guess Americans don't see it so much for what it is, but maybe see it with something closer to the clinical behavioral definition of 'deviant behavior'. Penyulap _talk 05:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what an average hat weighs, the kind as in the photo, and how much it cost to send that many kilograms to orbit. Penyulap _talk 06:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are talking about. To clarify my position, I have nothing against including the section in principle, but I do not like the idea of a "secret section" - content should either be notable enough to inclide year round, or not notable enough to include at any point. If it is not notable enough, then it is still notable enough to be included in sections on expeditions which occupied the station at Christmas, such as Expedition 30, however it should be worded to apply specifically to those crews. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 12:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine no problem, then for now I'll just respectfully note that it is already a collaborative effort, and I can't see it causing trouble, so I'll move on. If it does at some point cause trouble I'll use the shotgun myself, as there are better more obvious ways than that. Penyulap _talk 00:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support for falling morale Rfc

Expedition 15 crew in orbit wearing yellow hard-hats sent from earth to protect them against falling morale

"There has been considerable evidence that psychosocial stressors are among the most important impediments to optimal crew morale and performance."

I'm proposing this is a good picture related to the text and wonder if anyone supports or opposes it in it's current form. A link to morale is included, just in case, as this would be necessary for many people. I'm sure I can find some refs for crew morale rising and falling if required. Penyulap _talk 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the joke but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a joke. I'm certain there are better images to put in that section and if not, there's no requirement for an image anyway. It's a nice picture, but not very serious. It seems to me that there are more important influences on morale than props [1]. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 00:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I object to it being called a joke. If you leave the humor aside for a moment and examine it as clinical encyclopedic content, it is proper. It's well referenced, accurate, a fair summary of the available references, properly linked. The joke, which will apparently go completely unnoticed by some, is just icing on the cake, and not much of it too. It's a very dry piece of humor if it is at all, by wikipedia standards, it's not getting onto the list of funny articles anytime soon. Well considering the extreme care taken to make it encyclopedic, and the fact that this IS a genuine subject, I mean, why are they wearing these hats in Zero-G, why were the crew sent these hats, rather than the space in the supply craft used for something more clinical and scientific ? These are subjects of importance, and that ref, fantastic ! The final report has fantastic leads and anecdotes to add to the section, the New-scientist article (NSA) has a very interesting summary and comparison, the whole thing about the Americans getting the blues as the mission progresses, but the Russians pretty much don't, because of the different approaches to deal with it. I mean, they (the Russians) have done the studies mentioned in the NSA, they have had long term crews before, beyond 3 months, they have had the results of the crew making their own fun on MIR, So it's interesting to read those reports and see the different approaches. Thing is, the ISS is not a single space station, it's 5, although people can't see that, they can at least see it is three, there is the ROS and USOS with everything from docking to ballistic shielding to systems and crew all being completely different, that's even before you get to planet Kibō, which is different yet again, with their 'art is a serious pursuit in orbit' approach. The Europeans, and of course I always ignore the Canadians. Now not only does the ISS have great lessons in teaching the rescue crew and miners how to survive per NSA, but it has great lessons for expert retention on Wikipedia. Wikipedia itself is certainly in it's infancy and going downhill right now. The Cosmonauts on MIR have the right idea using the stations vacuum cleaner as a jet-pack doing laps, but hey, if you don't take notice of these things, and send the crew some hard hats like the Russians do, recognize the importance of it, you get a sit-down strike on Skylab, expert loss on Wikipedia, or crews coming home early from Salyuts. Penyulap _talk 04:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have little if any idea what you're talking about. All the same, you asked for input and I provided it. I think the picture is not serious and inappropriate. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 11:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, I still want comments on it, because, this is an aspect of the Russian workplace that clearly is not well understood by westerners. When I work out how to explain it to you guys, I shall have worked out how better to explain it in the article. For example, to oversimplify, if I were to ask, why did they spend so much to send the hats into orbit, I'm thinking at the moment there are a lot of people wouldn't know why. There was good reason however. I just haven't explained yet, plus, I'm still busy reading my way through that excellent doc you posted. Penyulap _talk 12:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Per the RfC: I support the idea of the article dealing with the topic of morale, whether high or low, falling or rising, as long as we have verifiable sources for the claims. On the other hand, I don't believe that particular photo, which represents a routine kind of send-up from the mission controllers to assist in social connection and comraderie, is a very useful photo for that section. N2e (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What kind would you suggest ? I do hope it's not a cheesy group photo for comraderie, as people are so accustomed to looking at that kind of thing the point would be be lost. Anyhow, the reasons behind the activity (in the photo) will need further explanation it seems. Penyulap _talk 05:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing problem: astronautix.com

There are many citations of astronautix.com in this Wikipedia article. That website is written by a single author who doesn't list his credentials. According to the Wikipedia article Encyclopedia Astronautica, the author is an enthusiast. This doesn't make him an expert. I think the website fails to meet the requirements in the policy WP:SOURCE, so all of these citations should be removed. Would anyone like to discuss? Pine^talk 07:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The website has been cited by several other publications, it is generally considered to be reliable, and I believe this was discussed in one of the FACs. --GW… 09:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• In my experience Astronautix has a lot of inaccuracies. I know this from researching info on space suits (he also doesn't make corrections if you contact him).--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think we used this to justify it. Assuming the claims are true (and indeed, NASA have cited the website elsewhere which supports the first claim on the page), it would suggest that we can consider it notable. --GW… 09:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an alternative source I have been meaning to work in somewhere, but for the time being Mark Wade is da man ! I mean, what IS a good source if he isn't ? _{(don't say nasa don't say nasa don't say nasa)} Penyulap _talk 17:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

NASA is a very reliable source when you move away from their general audience articles and into their published documents (NTRS).--Craigboy (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Their pics are lovely, everything else, I mean everything else needs to be checked, so whats the point, you have to find refs to prove if nasa is right, there is that much spin. Just go straight to the unbiased refs in the first place and just take the pics. The 'Nasa Brochure' article doesn't get much praise from the higher-ups. Easier to get to the truth fast by reading everything, from all 'sides' and many many sources. The technical articles about their own stuff is great, their coverage of other countries is appalling. Penyulap _talk 18:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

(Cough) Brad commented in the recent FARC here that "There is an over reliance on a single source of information (NASA) and several sources that are questionable in meeting the requirement of "high-quality and reliable". But I don't think he meant that one. I try to include ESA JAXA RSA and so forth. Actually I try to check a lot of what NASA comes up with because they come up with a lot of crap and half truths sometimes. They'll say things like "Nasa controls the space station" but what do they mean ? There often is more in what they don't say than what they do, right now, I'd dearly love to know the dollar amount, the budget, the receipts for Zarya, because they didn't foot the bill for it's design, part of the cost of construction for sure, but was it really all of it ? Hmph. Question everything. Of course, it's a global thing, the Russian media does sometimes overlook the Chinese program too I've seen. Please do pop onto the talkpage any that are ok, as I personally go on instinct and that's not enough for everyone else. Penyulap _talk 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

From my experience Pen you have always seem to have had an vendetta with anything pro-NASA. And whenever you've been asked to provide a contradicting source you either cannot find one or the only you can find is from a popular source with little insight into the subject. But you usually don't back up any claims you make.Craigboy (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• The website is widely cited, but just because everyone believes it doesn't mean that it's accurate. The website has very few external citations that I can find, making its reliability even more questionable than the average self-published source. Furthermore, a chapter in Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-2006-4702/chapters/chapter15.pdf says, "Mark Wade’s online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors have not always been fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance." Also GW, the question is not if the source is notable, the question is if the source is reliable. I'd say that it clearly fails WP:SOURCE because it's self-published, cites few other sources, and received the criticism above. Pine^talk 07:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, cool, he's not perfect, (actually I haven't even seen his butt and I'm not gay either,) but who is perfect ? Is there any particular statement or material that can be improved ? Is there some mistake in the article that you have other citations for, everyone can have a look and change it over if there is a mistake. What errors have you found ? Penyulap _talk 18:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Pine, by your definition ("because it's self-published, cites few other sources"), that would make NASA, RSA, ESA, JAXA and so many other websites used as sources unreliable. While there are some inaccuracies, if its something that is correct then why can't Encyclopedia Astronautica be used?--NavyBlue84 22:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Navy blue84, WP:IRS says,

"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

3. the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

For example, Information on NASA's website would often be in this category because NASA is publishing information about itself. There are exceptions, for example a NASA press release which praises the agency's safety record might be considered "unduly self-serving." By comparison, Astronautix is a self-published source that isn't publishing information about itself, so Austronautix doesn't get this exception, especially since its reliability as a third-party self-published source is questionable. Pine^talk 09:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Cool sweet, you've made your point, so cough up a challenge to Astronautix, find any statement referenced to Astronautix, then find any other reference on the 'net that disputes that statement, and we'll be off and running going somewhere towards removing potentially unreliable info from the article. Cool. However, if everything Astronautix says remains unchallenged, then it just stays as it is. It's there, it's referenced, end of story. Stuff stays in the article whether it's poorly referenced or not referenced at all. If there is no reference at all (glare Craigboy) you pop a "citation needed" thingy at that point. But before you do, please check if the ref is kindof easy to find like on the next line :) Penyulap _talk 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen I am not responsible for finding refs that you choose not to place in the article.Craigboy (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You are responsible for deleting the references I put there in the first place. (GLARE CRAIGBOY) like here there are plenty here is another It's all Glareworthy. More Oh it's glareworthy all right. -(o)-(o)- is not enough. -(O)-(O)- is more like it. It's very Glareworthy indeed. Penyulap _talk 19:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For the au.af.mil ref I did not remove it on purpose. You do not need to source that APAS is Russian designed, its very unlikely to be challenged and is sourced in its main article. See When a reliable source is requiredCraigboy (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I think that we should replace all references to Astronautix with a "citation needed" template. The material itself can stay in the article unless someone finds a reference that opposes a specific item that was sourced from Astronautix. In this way, the current content of the article can be gradually checked over time with references other than Astronautix, and the "citation needed" template allows us to show that the material is currently not referenced by a reliable source so someone needs to check it eventually. I think that this is the smoothest way of eliminating references to Astronautix while minimizing the disruption to the article. Pine^talk 12:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, how about just replacing all citations with a link to the original diff where I said it. If I didn't say it, then we should use citation needed, failing that, I support what is going to happen after you do it, by pretty much every other editor, some of which have responded above. Penyulap _talk 23:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to follow your comment and I'm lost. Can you restate that in a different way? Pine^talk 09:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean that often statements are referenced when they first appear, but the reference gets trampled underfoot and lost when there is an argument. like the recent Russian designed APAS in the china section, I'm quite sure I refd it for russian design at some point, but it's like been trampled. I think the same person that trampled it is asking for it to be ref'd now.

Pen everyone knows APAS is a Russian design (and this is not a disputed claim), I was asking for a source that stated Shenzhou even used APAS.Craigboy (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Like that. As for removing Astronautix references from the article be my guest, the chances that any other editor won't just put them back is zero. Personally I don't care, do as you please, be my guest, I care more about something being fairly represented to the public than the refs, but seriously, Astronautix is good stuff. You'd just make useless busywork with the cn tagging, asking other editors to reference what is already referenced to their satisfaction. Penyulap _talk 05:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The point about references getting trampled is a good one. An idea that's been troubling me is that if I replace all Astronautix references with CN, then what's a better reliable source? If NASA has problems also then we'd need some way of finding an alternative reliable source to both NASA and Astronautix. Can you or anyone else suggest one, or do we want to accept these sites on the risky assumption that their error rate is as low as we can reasonably get? Pine^talk 10:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

They just have to be left as is, as crappy as they are, until something better is found. Then you have to decide which is better. The way I personally do it, is first off, read everything nothing beats research. That gives you a good base to work from so you can spot the crap. Then a good way to test out something is just to look at what is being said, like if it's giving lots of facts and figures and names, it's a good bet that it's well researched. If it's just giving opinion and hype, chances are it's rubbish. Then there are sources that become known liars, you have to be wary of them. Penyulap _talk 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap is vastly understating NASA's reliability. For most information, especially when it relates to NASA programs, they are the best source. Avoid information that looks like its made for the general public (engineers usually don't write these articals).Craigboy (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture perfect defining example of what happens when you rely on NASA

In regards to the multiple comments of multiple editors in two or more talkpage sections, ladies and gentlemen I present for your consideration the article formerly known as "Electrical system of the International Space Station" it relied on NASA documents galore, and a Boeing, lots of lovely pics, web and pdfs. Cool, it's a great article. And all I needed to do to make it compliant with POLICY, not guidelines, was change it's title to reflect it's pristine American-centric viewpoint. here is the article which, being _{(a goofy)} human, I spelled wrong, lol. It's a great read to compare to the power supply section of this article which is very crude I admit, but has elements of both sides of the story. Penyulap _talk 02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that article is so bad. If the criticism is because of a lack of information on non-American parts of the station, that shouldn't be a criticism of using NASA as a source, but it might mean that additional sources for non-American information is needed. Pine^talk 03:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have posted both your question and it's own answer. The only thing missing is a careful consideration of the policy I often quote, and the conclusion that heavily relying on NASA leads to policy violation. Penyulap _talk 05:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case my concern is about astronautix for source reliability, not a lack of sources other than NASA due to problems with NPOV. I see that as a legitimate but separate concern. I would rather cite NASA than astronautix, but I would welcome other non-American reliable sources also. Pine^talk 08:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Sep 12 2011 review, Brad mentioned "There is an over reliance on a single source of information (NASA) and several sources that are questionable in meeting the requirement of "high-quality and reliable"." So it's both ways, but I'm pretty sure astronautix is not our worst source, and not what he was referring to. There are some seriously much more trashy ones here. Still, considering the lack of GF I've had recently in trying to improve the ref section, maybe we can just delete most of them (evil grin) I'll help there. I'm so busy away from that section that I have for sure done pairs and maybe triplet refs to the same place. Penyulap _talk 05:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Start?!

I can understand why this article was demoted as FA, but why has it been assessed as Start? I've been through all the articles on Wikipedia:Vital articles, but this is the craziest one I've seen. Lampman (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's very funny, so funny in fact I can't believe it wasn't my idea in the first place. If, at this time, you were to examine the article you'd find the references are in disarray, many in the wrong place, or missing. It would be a lot of work to fix it all, I know the refs are on my own list of things to do, but they are so totally not at the top. But as a temporary improvement to the situation I suggest and support stub class, sure, it's also just as inappropriate, but it improves the 'falling morale' and may add the inspiration needed to fix the situation. Penyulap _talk 04:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And by all means you have my support to change it to anything else you like, anything would be better, I pay no attention to the class of an article until it gets in the way of progress, then KA-POW ! Go for it, how is it worked out anyhow ? Penyulap _talk 05:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the definition of a start article, it's described as an article that "[p]rovides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more." That is certainly not the case with this article, no matter how problematic the references may be. If article assessment is to have any meaning at all, as a guide for users and editors alike, it needs to give a reasonable reflection of article quality. It should not be used as a way to highlight articles in need of cleanup, if this means ignoring the assessment scale. That's called crying wolf. I would suggest changing it at least to C, which means that "[c]onsiderable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues." I am not a member of this project, however, so I'll leave it to others to decide. Lampman (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've messed with them a bit, are they more realistic now would you say ? There are still topics not covered, like technology transfer between countries, Canada (a.k.a. who?), although architectural approaches is on my list of things to do, ah, who am I kidding the article is a mess, but I've extrapolated everyone else's view on what the class should be, not my own. It'll do. Penyulap _talk 06:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

New section - Work

I think there should be a new section in the part where there are Food, Exercise and Hygiene. I want to entitle it Work and de,rive it mainly from the crew timelines here. Any help and/or comments would be welcome.--U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cool, go for it, I'm happy to help, we have to keep away from lists though, the big brass in the project seem to hate lists

• So if it looks like this
• they won't pass it for a featured article someday
• they really don't like lists

But if it looks like this, all the different things in sentences, they'll love it. If each item has a sentence and they all follow each other. That's what I've learnt from the FAR and PR. I have seen those schedules before, when I was looking for the answer to who controls orientation of the station, like from which control center. There are ones that give a layout of a standard day, rather than a specific day. I'll try to find it too. The Canadian site here gives some good info on exercise. Some of the other stuff is on the shuttle though, and certainly some is old(which doesn't necessarily rule it out if things haven't changed, but fresh is better) A good example of a day laid out in paragraphs rather than a list is here on the ESA site. Something like that would be awesome. It's a good read, interesting and entertaining. Don't worry if you copy too much into this article though, I can help move what's too big into a sub-article if you have trouble. The summary that gets put here in this article is pretty much a cut and paste copy of the first paragraph of the sub-article. So what you write here will get copied there for the heading, or the other way round. Then anything too big for here will go there, and not be deleted. I'll keep looking for the schedule if it's not enough, or if you don't find what your looking for.. the link that you gave with specific timelines would go into the specific mission pages i would think, do you think so ? Penyulap _talk 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The new section called work just went in, although tracy doesn't seem to be getting the idea about 'I' in team, lolz. Plus, they seem to spend a lot of that section asleep. Anyhow, the life support section has taken away the parts that are part of the life support system, and safety aspects has taken in exercise, as exercise counters the medical problems from zero G. All needs a bit of polish though... Penyulap _talk 18:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the perfect pic for the section, they're well prepared for all those things that fall on them in zero-gravity. Lolz.Penyulap _talk 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There's got to be a better title than 'work' like activities, daily routine, typical crew schedule, life/living on the station, a day in the life of an ISS crewmember :)... some combination thereof. Something that reflects the daily aspects of this *amazing* high wire research and maintenance and yet connects to the reader on the ground without inflation or hype. There's a tall linguistic order. It was my assumption meals for instance were personal downtime rather than 'work' even as part of their schedule. Doesn't NASA refer to it as 'Station Activities' or 'Crew Activities'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 03:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

'flight activities' might be a bit confusing, 'schedule' I'm sure will turn up as although it's boring, used everywhere in the article already, encyclopedias are a bit that way. 'Itinerary' is that too fancy ? as in 'crew itinerary'. Lets see what everyone else comes up with too. (but yes, work and schedule are a bit boring, although certainly clear and minimalist). Penyulap _talk 05:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

any further ideas on the name of the section ? who likes / dislikes the suggestions that have been made so far .. Penyulap _talk 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I like Crew activities. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 21:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

well go for it. Penyulap _talk 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Craigboy, you mention in your edit summary that the image is 'unencyclopedic', why ? I can't see any problem with it, the lads are all clearly working. It's clearly 3 times better than the replacement, as there is 3 times the work being done.

Pen I'm not going to play these games.Craigboy (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a game Craigboy, it's a proper picture of the actual station with real crew activities and it's a fair indication of the working environment. What I need now is a real reason from you as to why it's 'unencyclopedic' or 'inaccurate'. It's not a word game, I'd like an actual reason. Penyulap _talk 15:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The picture shown here is clearly a better representation of work on the Space station. By all reports I have seen the crew enjoy working 400kms above the earth with a view that can't be beat. Anyone would be stoked to be up there working. There are workplaces that are rather ordinary, or racked with worry and sorrow, Coal mines in the third world come to mind as a subject needing illustrations that reflect the oppressively difficult working conditions and danger, however that doesn't seem to be the case on the ISS. Being happy about it is a fair and proper representation of work on the ISS, as the lads demonstrate with their yellow hats. Does anyone else have a problem with this image ? or does anyone like it ? Penyulap _talk 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Image is inaccurate, and has been reverted.Craigboy (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'Inaccurate' ? Penyulap _talk 13:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Crew members do not wear hard hats on the ISS (except for when they were posing for this picture).Craigboy (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Will you support the picture if I find you at least 3 pictures of them wearing other hats on the ISS ? (I do not yet have such pics, and will have to find such pics, I think I can, and I am just picking the number arbitrarily) Penyulap _talk 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No.Craigboy (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, then I'll put it back in as you have no reasonable objection to it. If someone else wants to assist by providing a third, or just an actual reason cool, it's history, otherwise you haven't explained why it's 'unencyclopedic' 'inaccurate' or why they don't wear hats on the ISS, which photographic evidence disputes. Penyulap _talk 05:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words, I said hard hats. I have given you a reason. But yet you choose to continue to play this game. I'm reverting your edit.Craigboy (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologize, I missed the word 'hard' on the first read. Didn't mean to twist your words. Anyhow, they're not hard hats that they are actually wearing in that picture. (I mean I can't get over your totally disputing the photographic evidence, I mean, this is not one of my own pictures I made, I'm not THAT good with GIMP, it's from NASA I think, just look it up) anyhow they are not hard hats, they are yellow hats. They can't have got onto the station without being 100% Mission control approved I'm sure. If I can get a ref saying they aren't hard hats, they are just yellow hats, can I have your support for the picture, and should I get a ref saying they wear hats on the ISS, you know, aside from this photo ? Also, I'm pretty darn sure the 'reason' has to be something to do with 'policy' or, to make it easy, any essay more than 3 days old will do too, probably. Wait, is it the caption ? I don't think I said anything about 'hard' hats, I do think I mentioned the commanders mustache though. How about I review the description so it doesn't mention hard in relation to hats. Penyulap _talk 18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen, I didn't say it was photoshopped. Re-read my original comment ("Crew members do not wear hard hats on the ISS (except for when they were posing for this picture)"). I don't know what you mean by "yellow hats" (and don't tell me they're hats that are yellow). They're clearly hard hats, and they're most likely wearing them to make it a humorous photo.Craigboy (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at the article right now and I'm seeing 5 hats across 2 photos. (Because the Christmas template is showing). There are plenty more hats here and if it is included that's going to make 10 hats in the article, I'm thinking some different colors would be nice, I mean they are all red hats, with white trim and a bit of green, I'd love a picture with some yellow hats to balance the article a bit. Penyulap _talk 12:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Pen you're hard enough to follow as it is so can you please keep the jokes to a minimum.Craigboy (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well how about start making sense ? I mean what's "Image is inaccurate" or "Crew members do not wear hard hats on the ISS" all about ? oh come on, I am asking serious questions here, and what am I getting in return ? Penyulap _talk 13:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You're getting very obvious answers and responding with things like "It's clearly 3 times better than the replacement, as there is 3 times the work being done" and talking about the balance of different kind of hat pictures in the article.Craigboy (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I can hardly see where this can go except into new additions, either some lecture about how they improve crew morale with all sorts of things like this, or some complete exhaustive section on humor on the ISS. Am I going to be writing that whole lot all by myself ? How about lets do it together, are you with me ?

But for the time being, I think people can 'get the joke' that the crew are making here. How about some mind-numbingly boring caption like "Unlike on earth Hard hats in Zero-G serve a different purpose, boosting crew morale and preventing psychological problems" ? Something like that ? It would certainly spoil it for me, how about you ? I recall on some hollywood movie, conair I think it was, that humor, or more specifically levity, can cause pain. Is that the concern here ? That readers will find it somehow distracting when they get to it, and it's like they get an instant owch ?

Anyhow, it's not all cube farm mentality up there, there are plenty of "serious" pictures of "serious" work and that's not a balanced representation of the ISS workplace as a whole. I feel a NASA lecture coming on. Can you feel it ? Penyulap _talk 13:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WOW a quick look and there is like a gazillion, or ok, 1.8 million gazillion hits for this sort of stuff, it's a goldmine, this is so cool. I mean I have nothing against treadmills for crew health but this is so totally overlooked. This kind of stuff goes into crew health, oh man this is a brainstorm right here, cool. I'll stick it into the crew health section with an appropriate paragraph, how about that ? nothing but net! Penyulap _talk 13:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So now after your long tirade above you realize its meant to be a humorous picture? I'm not sure if you're serious about the humor section being added to the article or if this is another jokes of yours. Are you claiming that without a humorous picture, the article is imbalanced? I don't know what you mean by a "NASA lecture".Craigboy (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tirade is a rather insulting word to use.(inserted text:actually it's fair enough coming from Craigboy, but nobody else should try it!) It's also strange after you didn't want to move any of our extended conversation to userpages. Now as for the picture, it's a real picture, not doctored. What the lads are up to is, I think, fair to describe as happily working. Anyhow, I have in front of me "Psychology of Space Exploration" Edited by Douglas A. Vakoch, it's a NASA book, so I'm sure more readers will like it as a Ref. Now in Chapter 8, "Spaceflight and Cross-Cultural Psychology" about culturally shaped behavior, with a part about Remek returning to Earth with “red hands” disease. and when flight surgeons asked how he had acquired this malady, Remek explained, “Well, in space, whenever I reached for this or that switch, the Russians cried ‘Don’t touch that!’ and slapped me on my hands.” and the chapter goes on to explain "prejudices against members of other cultures, in addition to conflicting values and preferences. How would emotionally controlled astronauts react to highly expressive Russians?" and so forth.

So there are some great parts about "Cultural problems that the astronauts reported pertained to personal hygiene, food preferences, and chosen activities as well as to interpersonal distance, privacy, and work styles." and "Differences in decision-making and problem resolution, for example, were tied to differences in national culture and the backgrounds of crewmembers and personnel."

Now that's great stuff isn't it ? about the different ideas on working styles and all, across cultures and so forth, maybe that's how the Russian crew get on with the job, whereas smiling or having fun is a serious problem in American culture. Although, to be fair, although I can reference it properly and qualify it correctly with it's clinical behavioral context, I think a caption such as 'Deviant behavior by Russian Crew members' would be somewhat misleading to laypeople reading the article, so I don't support that kind of thing. Penyulap _talk 06:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The hats were sent on the Nasa shuttle, I guess they had plenty of spare upmass as usual. Penyulap _talk 11:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

APAS cite needed

Well, to summarize the APAS use in the article, I'd say It's a fair statement to say that the ISS, Tiangong, the NASA Shuttle and the Shenzhou all use the APAS-89 version, with minor mission-specific modifications to the connectors (like pinouts on electrical connectors) and the APAS-89 was the one designed for the Russian Space shuttle and MIR-2 station. But I would need help finding suitable sources and refs for that which we can use in the article. Barnstars are on offer :) Penyulap _talk 09:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the -89 bit is the year Russia/the soviet union upgraded it. Think of crappy windows software like 'windows-95' and 'windows-98' same kind of thing as that. But it needs a cite too, (but not as much really) barnstar optional :) Penyulap _talk 09:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how true that is. APAS-95 seems to be more of an evolution than a missions specific modification. Chinese APAS (they haven't seem to have released a name for it) may or may not be compatible with APAS-89/APAS-95 (see here). Although I feel all of this is irrelevant to the ISS article and more appropriate for the APAS article.--Craigboy (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also as an somewhat irrelevant side note but this is something you may be interested in. Boeing has being trying to push for a modified APAS-95 mechanism to be used for the Commercial Crew Program. They have stated "the existing APAS avionics which uses an extensive array of electronics relays and switches would be replaced by a more modern microprocessor or logic based system using fewer components, lower power consumption, increased fault detection capability, smaller footprint and volume for installation, and reduced weight". APAS probably won't be used because NASA has been really been pushing for the implementation of NDS since it is not been burdened by ITAR restrictions, allows for low impact electromagnetic docking and is compliant with the International Docking System Standard.--Craigboy (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

OMG you're a total GENIUS, that whole "the rendezvous and docking project hardware is compatible with the International Space Station." - Jiang Guohua, a professor and chief engineer at the China Astronaut Research and Training Center in Beijing. is brilliant. Stick it in the article man ! I can't steal your thunder there, you've had that since march ? good thing you remember/mention it ! That is brilliant ! Especially since it's the first specific mention of the rendezvous system. Which suggests more than it reveals as to where the docking would occur, yes, because as far as I know, there is no (automatic) rendezvous system whatsoever on the USOS, it's strictly Russian.

Anyhow as for the public domain thing, it's like 'So totally too late' horse has bolted and so forth. The Americans are simply trying to make their version the standard, however, JAXA is the only agency I can see being told to take it up. The ESA, Russians and Chinese have the standard and are far too busy going to MARS to backtrack for no reason whatsoever, except to help America avoid the requirement to use the Russian designed system on it's craft in future if it wants to co-operate. If they get that onto the station, or if it is scheduled to go, like on the new commercial craft, then it's in the article, but as it is, can't see it's relevancy. (even though it is released into the PD it is still a US idea, and gives them boasting rights)

ITAR is just another way to say 'we don't like you' after all you can only copy answers in class if you are copying off someone who knows more than you, whats to learn from the ISS that 921 and tiangong 3 heavy don't already demonstrate ? Still if there is a page for ITAR, a link is good for the impediments that America makes towards Chinese partnership.

Re the technical incompatibilities, that's to do with the rendezvous system, is the Shenzhou optical whilst the Russian is RF, making it an obvious (and easy) requirement to EVA attach the appropriate fittings to the ISS first, they are always fiddling with the Kurs furniture up there, so it's no big hassle. Penyulap _talk 05:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I see you missed the quote below it Yang said technical hurdles remain in pursuing such collaboration. Specifically, he emphasized that China’s space station standards and the ISS docking standards do not agree. The unification of standards is the first problem to solve in the effort to carry out future space station cooperation, Yang said, according to China’s Xinhua state-run news agency. “This is the first time I am aware of that any high-profile official associated with the Chinese space program has made such a strong statement to the Chinese public on ISS participation,” Gregory Kulacki, a senior analyst and China Project Manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program in Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview. “And, as far as I know, it is the first time I have heard a Chinese official confirm that the docking hardware they will be using in the upcoming mission is not compatible with the ISS.”. I don't know why you keep on assuming Shenzhou cannot manually dock and why you you keep on neglecting the fact the the hardware is not compatible with the Russian segment (that is if its compatible at all). We can debate space policy on our userpages but its irrelevant here.--Craigboy (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It continues here I learn lots of new stuff, and explain a lot too, and so forth. In the end however, I think there are a lot of things that might be said in the article like

• If Chinese craft are using APAS they could dock at the USOS until '15 or '16 per Craigboys explaination.
• If the Chinese adopt the PD system they could do it after that.
• If they came up with other ideas like going Probe and Drogue they could do it.

but it all depends on if they are allowed, and I think it all boils down to 'if it becomes politically feasible'. Penyulap _talk 08:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

recent edits

1. (cur | prev) 09:47, 26 January 2012‎ Craigboy (talk | contribs)‎ (208,305 bytes) (→Expeditions and private flights: Removed "a term they generally dislike". "NASA stated it was "not interested" in private spaceflight from the beginning of the ISS and has not changed its position." Your source is 12 years old.) (undo)

That's pretty much when they started flying there, they've never carried tourists, and the NASA shuttle has retired. Have they mentioned any NASA replacement will be taking tourists ? we can mention that. Dragon is commercial, not NASA, maybe we can mention spacex's position as well ? It seems like a fair statement overall. Would it be better to go with something like "NASA stated it was "not interested" in private spaceflight at the beginning of the ISS and their shuttle never carried tourists ?" use the 12 year old reference for the beginning and use the link through to the other article for the unlikely to be disputed 'they have never carried tourists ?' still, it's real easy to ref that bit as well, but it goes in the overkill direction for me.

1. (cur | prev) 09:33, 26 January 2012‎ Craigboy (talk | contribs)‎ (208,052 bytes) (→China: "Comprehensive" is a peacock term. You need to cit the "saved the station" part (although it is true). Contradicting claims have been made about if Shenzhou could dock to ISS. You never sourced that they use APAS.) (undo)

Well spotted, what adjective would be a fair summary ? For saved the station, yes I agree with you there too, how about reffing a dime a dozen nasa 'we can't afford it' kind of thing ? There are plenty to choose from for freedom. Or what about going down the sm path, they never developed one. The proposed zarya alternatives wouldn't provide advanced life support, nasa like europe, they are using the iss to develop reprocessng and it's silenced any fresh crit of elektron eh? or go down the experience running a space station path, 171 days versus, gosh, how much is it, mir ten years, I know they have averaged more than one since '71. I dunno the total, should we go one of each or is that overkill too ? which way is best for you ?

Overall at some point there will need to be notes, I'll have to get to that, and intend to, unless anyone wants to help ?

What have you found for Shenzhou ? also I think maybe it's better to go with the until 2015,16? 'without modification' but whichever. sorry I have been distracted with the text and flow mostly, do you want to help go over all the refs with me for the whole article ? if that's the case, we can reboost it back through FA way ahead of schedule. Penyulap _talk 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Chinese participation in this project is blocked by America." well it's embraced by esa, and american laws galore prevent it, what about all 5 would need to agree before china could, esa is for and america is against ? Because you know me and canada eh ? "Who knows" what they think :) would something like that be better ? Penyulap _talk 13:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(→Docking: Robot is the incorrect nomenclature. Automated docking with what separates the the Russian and European crafts from the American and Japanese. There will only be five ATV flights, unsure about HTV.)

Really ? The guy from wikiproject robotics was saying that a robot is a machine that exhibits a reasonable amount of autonomy, and robotic (station arms) don't. So the arms would be robotic arms, not robot arms, and the ships would be robot ships not robotic ships, because the only thing that the mc and iss crew do for them is supervise with buttons marked stop and retreat and so forth. They climb into orbit by themselves, adjusting into a chase orbit until they detect the iss, and then plot their own trajectories and approach. Unless someone says hey stop, they dock by themselves. It's all per Mars, it has to be built that way and refined now rather than later, that's why they do it.

To the space station is fine and true, although it's only the ROS. There are no automatic dockings on the usos, and no berthing on the ROS.(sept rass) So maybe it's good to specify there. Fair enough about the 5, what comes after that ? Penyulap _talk 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"NASA stated it was "not interested" in private spaceflight at the beginning of the ISS and their shuttle never carried tourists ?" I prefer this over whats in the article now. I believe NASA has mentioned the ISS as a possible destination for tourists aboard the American Commercial Crew vehicles. --Craigboy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

cool, but nasa shuttle ok? they were so last century, everyone had one, the russians, the europeans, the japanese, good to go with nasa shuttle. add about commercial vehicles might as you please, though they aren't nasa are they ? does nasas new get a mention for tourism ? Penyulap _talk 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. NASA has to give the go ahead if tourists want to visit the USOS side. The development of the Commercial Crew vehicles is partially by NASA.--Craigboy (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"what adjective would be a fair summary ?" A adjective isn't needed, I think it's fine as it is now. --Craigboy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

coolPenyulap _talk 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"For saved the station, yes I agree with you there too, how about reffing a dime a dozen nasa 'we can't afford it' kind of thing ?" I don't know what you mean. --Craigboy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it's easy to find NASA saying they can't afford something, anything really, regardless of how much they are given by the government they still declare it's not enough. People always seem happy when you tell them something was canceled for lack of funding, rather than the real reasons, which they'll argue all day long. Goes for freedom, goes for buran, goes for anything really. Penyulap _talk 06:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you referring to the Soyuz spacecraft being able to service ISS while the Shuttle were grounded and after their retirement?--Craigboy (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"What have you found for Shenzhou ? also I think maybe it's better to go with the until 2015,16? 'without modification' but whichever." Maybe we should have something like "there have been contradictory claims about whether Shenzhou is able to dock with the ISS". I have a source that mentions this.--Craigboy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

who is it from, what does it say? Penyulap _talk 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In a July 8 press report, China’s first astronaut, Yang Liwei, was vocal regarding his country’s interest in ISS cooperation. Yang, who is also deputy director of the China Manned Space Engineering Office in Beijing, made his comments to a domestic audience in an online interactive broadcast. Yang said technical hurdles remain in pursuing such collaboration. Specifically, he emphasized that China’s space station standards and the ISS docking standards do not agree. The unification of standards is the first problem to solve in the effort to carry out future space station cooperation, Yang said, according to China’s Xinhua state-run news agency. “This is the first time I am aware of that any high-profile official associated with the Chinese space program has made such a strong statement to the Chinese public on ISS participation,” Gregory Kulacki, a senior analyst and China Project Manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Global Security Program in Cambridge, Mass., said in an interview. “And, as far as I know, it is the first time I have heard a Chinese official confirm that the docking hardware they will be using in the upcoming mission is not compatible with the ISS.”--Craigboy (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Chinese participation in this project is blocked by America." well it's embraced by esa, and american laws galore prevent it, what about all 5 would need to agree before china could, esa is for and america is against ? Because you know me and canada eh ? "Who knows" what they think :)" I prefer what you put recently over what was there before because we don't know how the Canadian and Japanese agencies feel about Chinese participation. --Craigboy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

they both follow the us as a rule, esp japan. (look at their military foreign policy) so it's basically ok now ? Penyulap _talk 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Its okay now but eventually we will need to see with those agencies have made any mention of Chinese cooperation (also Japan and China hate each other).--Craigboy (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"The guy from wikiproject robotics was saying that a robot is a machine that exhibits a reasonable amount of autonomy, and robotic (station arms) don't. So the arms would be robotic arms, not robot arms, and the ships would be robot ships not robotic ships, because the only thing that the mc and iss crew do for them is supervise with buttons marked stop and retreat and so forth. They climb into orbit by themselves, adjusting into a chase orbit until they detect the iss, and then plot their own trajectories and approach. Unless someone says hey stop, they dock by themselves. It's all per Mars, it has to be built that way and refined now rather than later, that's why they do it." A lot term use depends on the field they're being used in, the space agencies don't call them robots, they call the "unmanned spacecraft" or "uncrewed spacecraft". Sometimes they are simply called "crafts". -Craigboy

too broad outside the industry, could read as watercraft for sailors, aircraft for pilots, and so on. what about autonomous spacecraft, see the problem is that the manned craft fly themselves too, so if you say just automatic, its like a car, but if you say robot, nobody thinks there is a man inside, like that. more ideas ? Penyulap _talk 05:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"There are no automatic dockings on the usos, and no berthing on the ROS." You can make it more specific if you want, the changes I made were only to fix previous inaccuracies and vagueness.--Craigboy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fair enough about the 5, what comes after that ?" ESA doesn't know. That's why there was talk about them providing the vehicle to de-orbit the ISS. --Craigboy (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that comment. Penyulap _talk 07:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Barter agreement means that ESA needs to provide something to NASA (see here). A de-orbiting vehicle, which something NASA will eventually need, could help fulfill that obligation.--Craigboy (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Quoting from the article linked " "NASA made the decision to put an end to the shuttle program," Dordain said. "The Europeans made the unilateral decision to develop the ATV. The Japanese made the unilateral decision to develop the [H-2 Transfer Vehicle]. It is anarchy really. Let's be clear about it. Everyone developed systems on the basis of their own needs without any discussion among partners on what we actually collectively needed." "Ha! he should stamp his foot when he says that and threaten to tell his mommy. Now when you keep this in mind, from the article "The space station was also going to tie the emerging European and Japanese national space programmes closer to the U.S.-led project, thereby preventing those nations from becoming major, independent competitors too" it looks like Dordain is almost singing a NASA song (plus, I got other refs per america wanting to tie china into a dependent relationship using the ISS). When you look at it this way, seems China, who is left out, got the better deal. Penyulap _talk 01:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of looking good, (well I almost was) that Orion is not looking good except for its launch escape motors, it's the ugliest thing I've ever seen. Now the Dragon started off as ugly as sin too, but the nutty CEO they weren't watching totally pimped up dragon no end, it's the sexiest spacecraft by far. The full story is here, (keep an eye out for the phrase "Dragon’s solar arrays generate up to 5,000 watts of power — enough to power over 80 standard light bulbs.") anyhow, that's what NASA needs, less stuffed shirts soaking up all their cash and more nutcases who do it for the chicks (CEO pictured, title loaded with innuendo). Well, governments the world over are pretty much the same, it will be interesting to see if there is an impact in the media from Dragons arrival. I'd like things to look like Babylon 5 myself, hmmm. Penyulap _talk 02:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Luch satellite constellation

Does anyone know what the status of the Luch satellites is ? Are they back online ? Penyulap _talk 01:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• The Luch 5A satellite is still in checkout phase I believe. Probably will be used starting sometime this year. Luch 5B is to launch either this year or next year. Other then that there are no Luch satellites that can be used. All others have re-entered or are in a graveyard orbit.--NavyBlue84 15:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Navyblue. Penyulap _talk 20:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit / talk page notices

The page notices for British, and ATTitude / ALTitude, are not needed as far as I can see. Is there anyone who can give a good reason for them to be retained ? Attitude is easily replaced with the word orientation, it seems to work very well so far. Like 'Crew' instead of Astro/Cosmonaut. There seems to be no need to be contentious with the editors. Also, there is no need to have any more spell checker attacks and the whole British Vs American thing anymore. Penyulap _talk 04:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Gw, rather than call it a big rehash, I'd rather hear it stated one time by the man who changed it without consensus (but I think perfectly justified) why he chose British. Searching the archives will provide no light on this single subject. Penyulap _talk 21:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it a pointer to the consensus that was reached to change it to british would be interesting too, although I know myself what he did was cool. Just the silence isn't so much. Penyulap _talk 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I don't think there was a consensus. I think it was changed ad hoc, and then when people changed it back, it started getting "reverted" to British despite that the original change to British should have been what was reverted, as it was without consensus. This article is a monument to the failure of the Wiki process. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well thank you for some sense on the matter. That is precisely what happened, and it's caused problems ever since. I fully intend to do precisely the same thing, that is, to return it to it's former state. ad hoc. I'll do it with precisely the same platform used, so that any argument that can be used to defend the first change will apply to the second change I make, and go 3R over it too. Let's see them argue that one with their mommy. I will make this article and it's talkpage a peaceful place where everyone is welcome and comfortable editing, and I absolutely will not give up, or be silent, or stop, or compromise, until that is the case, or I find Sarah Conner, either one is good. At the moment however, I'm trying to find if the EPIC:FAIL, sorry, ENG:VAR guidelines can be changed first, to fix this problem if I can, for everyone, and I'm using this article as an example of the need for change. Penyulap _talk 06:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

...And "programme" just took another hit. Penyulap _talk 05:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Intention to remove all ENG:VAR related talkpage templates and edit notices

A summary of support and objection to the insertion of an eng:var template on the talkpage.

No broad consensus can be found for the insertion or retention of the template, and significant overall opposition to it is listed below. Using this tool I have verified Rmhermen's statement that no first edit can be found, and note that for many years prior to this insertion of a template, no template was used.

Whilst there may have been some agreement amongst a very limited group of editors at the time of the template insertion, this cannot override the consensus on a wider scale.

There is at least one editor who suggests that ignoring the objections would solve the problem, that simply not caring would make the issue go away. I don't see ignoring many editors and their concerns as a good idea or policy, and observe that the objections and heated emotions over the issue are as fresh today as they were at the time. This is well illustrated by the recent round of name-calling on the talkpage over this issue. It hasn't gone away, and continuing to ignore the concerns of many editors doesn't seem likely to suddenly become a viable solution. Penyulap _talk

---

Editors who believe, or appear to believe the insertion or subsequent non-removal was not in accordance with process are:

• Jason Quinn (as above)
• Penyulap 'there appeared to be significant opposition, so temporary removal, followed by a little vote in the absence of a template would be a good idea' --03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• OhmsLaw "In my opinion this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen carry on here on Wikipedia ....I will continue to avoid helping here." — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) [2]
• 69.204.97.101 "there was never a popular consensus to convert this article to British English in the first place. Because this article should have never been switched in the first place, it should be switched back. This is completely allowable under the style guidelines. 69.204.97.101 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC) [3]
• jmdeur I was under the impression that the espoused policy, at least, was that majority rules at Wikipedia... In any case, the above individual is incorrect that only one lone dissenter is voicing an opinion that the article should be in American English if for no other reason as that is Wikipedia policy (not to mention the correct thing to do). I'll sit back for a while and see whether this correction is made. jmdeur 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC) [4]
• 70.170.125.247 I've reviewed the archives in the discussion pages and have not found were the change was clearly mentioned and voted upon 70.170.125.247 (talk) [5] [6]

*NavyBlue84 'Anyone could have brought this up here or started an RFC. Which is where I think this should be taken,' _{Please do let me know NavyBlue84 if you think everything is ok as is, I may have taken liberties here in thinking you'd like to see some better process used.(just delete my text if all is ok)}

• (The following two comments are a statement and response, both are included for clarity) The issue was discussed, and the current format was chosen by consensus. --GW… 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Perhaps your consensus is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.196.72.203 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [7]
• It DOES matter. WP:ENGVAR is pretty clear- don't change an article from one to the other without a good reason. --King Öomie 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [8]

---

Whilst editors who believe, or appear to believe all is in order are:

• WDGraham "The issue was discussed, and the current format was chosen by consensus." --GW… 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC) [9]
• Ckatz "The matter has been discussed repeatedly" [10]
• Liberty taken, I think the article is perfectly fine with EN-BR. This discussion has been dragged out for far to long. I have made less then 5 edits in 6 months, because I am tired of this Eng-Var thing, and the long drawn out diatribes here on the talk page.--NavyBlue84 13:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• My point being don't bother arguing about what it used to be and just don't change it from now without good reason. Reading the introduction to ENGVAR makes it quite clear that the style of English used doesn't matter. The other points only come into effect if there is a dispute, which there won't be if you stop caring. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [11]

Please do feel free to change your own listing, to reflect your position or a summary thereof. (inserted 17feb2012-> Thank you to those who have updated, reviewed and changed their position. (original-> Also, I haven't really done a good look-through, as I thought it was quite clear myself, sorry about that. Anyhow, some of the editors I think are still about, and so I can check if there opinion has changed at all. Penyulap _talk 03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment This supposed "tally" is in no way exhaustive or accurate and should be only be taken as reflecting Penyulap's interpretation of certain past discussions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

comment yes, the part where I mention "I haven't really done a good look through, as I thought it was quite clear" was a fair indication there. I do welcome help balancing it up naturally, and I'm surprised that hasn't been done almost instantly, there is usually prompt attention to this kind of tally, anyhow I'll get to it. Also, I do note with relief that Navyblue84 has clarified his position, so it's clearly no longer such a problem. Penyulap _talk 04:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have gone through pretty much everything I could see, and have listed more on both sides I think, this might help make clearer to anyone who isn't familiar with the talkpage. Penyulap _talk 16:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Here is something I found interesting, is it true ? Penyulap _talk 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately all arguments for the first use of a national variety for this article are unsupportable. The edit history includes the "conversion script" which was a script which moved articles from the UseModWiki software to the Phase II software. Edit histories were not preserved perfectly before or during this conversion so we cannot prove that the first recorded edit is the actual first edit (and I think that it isn't) and we know absolutely that the second edit is questionable because the bot only moved, it did not edit articles. Rmhermen (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Content moved from my talk page

I have moved this part of the discussion here from my talk page (where it was started by Penyulap under the title "Friendly warning") in order to keep everything in one place and ensure a wider audience. --W. D. Graham 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't delete my text from the talkpage, I don't mind correcting it and would love your assistance finding more and adding them, but I won't stand wholesale deletion like that, it's way over the bright lines. penyulap (from public connection)

You can start by removing all of the "!votes" that you've copied in from other discussions, and the ones which you use to imply support for your position when they do not. What is crossing the line is posting a list of !votes like that which is clearly intended to bias the discussion. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 09:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi GW, I'm sorry you feel that way about a list, however it does appear helpful as there seems to be some need to show the consensus regarding the poor manner in which the variant template was added. I can't see a clearer way than a list, but let me know if you think of anything. Also which ones don't you like, please help tally up if you can find any left out, or explain why something is not in the right place. I think it's rather easy though, given that many on the list are still around and luckily haven't left yet, so it is very easy just to ask for clarification. Which ones in particular concern you ? Penyulap _talk 12:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The ones that aren't part of the current discussion, and the ones which do not clearly state a preference. Which is most of them --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 17:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(inserted text) hold on, do you mean a preference for a variant ? the discussion is about a template, not which template it is, or which variant it is. I thought that was clear. The comments help point towards the ill-feelings that were created when a template was inserted without prior discussion and not removed after objections. The breakdown in the process, not the result, is what I am speaking of, sorry if I didn't make that perfectly clear to you. Penyulap _talk 13:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi GW, I picked out the ones as best I could that relate to the discussion, as per the topic of discussion "Edit / talk page notices" and "Intention to remove all ENG:VAR related talkpage templates and edit notices" the ones that are there, I felt, were talking about the template notice itself. Are there any you feel don't relate to the talkpage notice, or do you feel the conversation has a different topic, we could fix that instead if you like, also if you can give an example that would help as well. Also I removed my last comment to you from the iss tp where I tried to ask you to see things from other peoples point of view, I think it is quicker if someone does what you seem to be waiting for, which is point out that the word 'pathetic' when used to describe other editors is a personal attack in almost any language variant. Penyulap _talk 04:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is simply inappropriate to add people's !votes from previous discussions to ones in which they have not participated. You are simply trying to make it look as if somebody else supports your position, because the simple fact of the matter is that in the current discussion nobody supports your position. Describing an editor leaving the site because of their objection to the dialect that a single article is written it as being pathetic is not a personal attack, it is a statement on my opinion of their actions. --W. D. Graham 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WD, please do not delete my text like this without asking me. How is it possibly one sided anyhow, when there are two distinct sections to it, both summarizing as best everyone can ? The whole part of the list that starts off 'Whilst editors who believe, or appear to believe all is in order are:' do you want that title changed to use the word support ? would that be better ? Penyulap _talk 19:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Then make it clear in the title that it represents nothing more than your own opinion. --W. D. Graham 19:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

That would not be true, it's a collaborative effort. Also, is there any part of the quote beside your name you don't like or want to update ? I shouldn't assume you don't want to change sides, but you don't want to, do you, is it fair to say your happy on the support side of the summary ? Penyulap _talk 20:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My issue is not with your interpretation of my comment, it it with you misrepresenting other users. Let's have a look at some of the users you are quoting: Ohms Law: "In my opinion this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen carry on here on Wikipedia ....I will continue to avoid helping here." You have taken that completely out of context he isn't objecting to the dialect, or the tags, the thing which he considered to be the "dumbest" thing he has ever seen is the fact that the discussion was still going on - and now here you are trying to turn his own words against him by claiming that he supports the removal of tags to allow the discussion to continue. And to be quite frank, I agree with him. Penyulap, you are the only person who will not let this issue rest. Continuing; the comments left by 69.204.97.101, jmdeur and TungstenCarbide IV have nothing to do with the templates, but with the dialect choice itself. --W. D. Graham 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well what part of summarizing isn't taking something completely out of context, except that you call it out of context when you don't like what Ohms Law had to say, labeled him 'pathetic' and continue to claim he can see no problem. He was even kind enough to come back, point out that the consensus secondhand car fell apart two years ago and is no closer to repair, That part where he says in this conversation "You two are dumbasses. And, now that I've come back and see that nothing has changed at all, away I go again." is that according to you his way of saying he is very happy with your suppression of consensus ? If you think you can summarize his concerns better I'd dearly like to read how you do it, his full comments in the section he started is here Penyulap _talk 04:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What gives you the right to presume you can speak for other editors, especially those who have made it very clear that they want absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. And how dare you deliberately misrepresent my position like that. I never accused Ohm of being pathetic, I was referring to the editors who you claimed had left Wikipedia because of the dialect of a single article; users who you have not provided one shred of evidence to prove exist - maybe you were lying about that too. And remember, he called you a "dumbass" too. You're the only person who is keeping this alive, you're the only person who wants this change made, and you are the only person who isn't sick and tired of this. I think the real issue here is that you have contributed so much to the article that you feel you have a right for it to reflect your vision and views. Well, you don't own the article, it is a community matter, and the community has never found a consensus to move away from British English. Regardless of whether there was a consensus for the change in 2008, there wasn't even a discussion when the article was initially changed into American English. So regardless of whether we respect the status quo, or revert to the last "good" version, the article will still remain in British English, so there is no point discussing it. --W. D. Graham 10:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I would certainly love it if Ohms law labeled me a dumbass, some people have a style about these things, plus I know he wouldn't mean it in a bad way, as I do respect his, and everyone elses viewpoint and want to include them all. However, he said "now that I've come back and see that nothing has changed at all' and well, I wasn't here the first time now was I ? So I can't see how he could have been talking about me. Shame really.

You seem to say I am the 'only person' quite a lot, but there are other editors on the page with viewpoints as well. I'm not trying to speak for them, I'm just pointing to them, as you seem to say I am the 'only person' quite a lot. I'd like to include them all, and welcome them back. It seems clear enough that two years ago a lot of people got upset and many do not edit here anymore, how do you think we can get them all back, so they help with the editing here ? There was a lot of upset about this Eng:var template. How do you think we can be less confrontational and less contentious with them, you know, promote some harmony on this issue ?

reflect my vision and views ? I have no idea what you mean here, do you mean Jamaican ? I've since reconsidered my Jamaican platform, and have an alternative. Is that what you mean ? Penyulap _talk 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear there. I wasn't referring to your nationality, but to the fact that you are pushing this so hard that you clearly have some kind of agenda to convert the article into American English, possibly using the removal of the template as the first step. As for Ohm, are you trying to pretend that he never posted this in reply to your message. He clearly just wants the discussion to end. And we can be less confrontational when you are prepared to acknowledge defeat and get on with trying to improve the article rather than bicker over petty questions of language, because the rest of us are tired of discussing this crap. --W. D. Graham 14:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right diff? he seems to be talking about administrators a lot there, I'm not an administrator.

More importantly how can I possibly change it to American as a single editor ? I do, and have always said everyone should be free to express their opinions here, so the only possible way you can be convinced that I 'clearly have some kind of agenda to convert the article into American English' is if you are convinced that there is an American consensus that you are suppressing while I am trying to liberate it. If you were not convinced of this, how could you possibly think that I as a single editor with no English/American preference, who is bigger on Jamaican than anything else, is pushing for American ? You're totally exposing your thinking to everyone and giving them a good look at what you're up to there. Talk about busted, is that why you don't want editors to have their say ? It's fine for you to have a preference, many editors do, there is nothing wrong with that. But we need to respect other peoples opinions here to allow them to return to the page and help out. How do you think we can best show some respect to the people who got so upset back then ? Penyulap _talk 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

{{Uninvolved|policy|Inserted eng:var template failed to gain a consensus, from which it is not exempt. (note an admin has previously declined this request}} Ckatz originally declined my request, that request was in two parts, one part was later accepted by a different admin. I have repeated the request as Ckatz seems involved from his first (as far as I know) edit to the talkpage (here, at the bottom) where he prefers an arbitrary decision rather than a consensus which James had been opening up (plus he picked a side). I think that the arbitrary route hasn't really worked as well as it could have, and maybe James original idea was better. So 'going back to square one' and doing it right seems the go. Oh, and James (colds7ream / SalopianJames) is an admin too, I don't mind if he answers and smacks me in the head and tells me to shut the F up too. I would ! (I think he doesn't like me, but I have a lot of respect for the guy)

Comment. There is no consensus to remove the template, as can clearly be seen from this discussion. Penyulap has shown a shocking disregard for policy by copying other users' remarks from other pages, out of context as a vote-stacking exercise, and continually re-posting this request in an attempt to ask the other parent. I request that the administrator dealing with this request rejects it, and instead closes this entire discussion which has gone absolutely nowhere, and served only to waste valuable editor time, and antagonise editors. --W. D. Graham 08:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment I think it's more about adhering to fundamental policy regarding consensus. Whilst I am reminded of the Astronomer vs Amateur whilst I am pointing out other editors are upset about this, that does not mean I am giving up on you in any way, on the contrary, I want to find out why it is you don't want to acknowledge the widespread discontent over this from many editors, so I can bring all of you back together as one. Isn't that what you want too, everyone happy and harmoniously working together ? By the way, I do agree with you that asking uninvolved assistance does look very much like asking the other parent, in fact, I think I said as much on Ckatz's talkpage.(he's deleted it though, but it's there) I agree with you. Penyulap _talk 08:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment was removed after being read because - as I've indicated previously - I've no desire for my talk page to be swamped with the massive amounts of text that invariably follows. Any conversations regarding your behaviour here should be discussed here, not on my talk page. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, however I don't think that is the topic, but regarding behaviour, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. So the insertion of a template, against community concerns, and it's retention with no consensus despite those concerns is deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral action. I think the template was inserted prior to my arrival on wiki, so I think the topic, if it is about behaviour, wouldn't be all about me. Penyulap _talk 09:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is something that I think is helpful

When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted.

— policy

Here is the administrator action that was questioned by the community, it takes an admin to edit this so it's an administrators action, and here is the 'no consensus'. This clearly should be reverted, it is not exempt from consensus, and rather than explain the continual retention of the template to editors who have asked repeatedly over the years, a small minority of editors have been suppressing any harmony between editors on this issue. There was no consensus, literally, there was no consensus, let me point to it again here. So telling people there was consensus, 'buried in the archives or FAC' or whatever, is fundamentally flawed. Penyulap _talk 10:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen from the first diff, the edit in question was made in January 2010, and there was no objection at the time. The template was merely a repost of one already present on the talk page in a place where it would be more obvious to editors, and serving to provide information regarding a matter of fact (as regardless of the state of the discussion, the article is, and remains, written in the dialect which the template claims it is written in). Penyulap's discussion on removing it did not begin until September 2011. Given that it had already been in place for over 20 months, I think that it can be considered the de facto established status quo, and a new consensus would be needed before removing it. I believe that trying to using the stated policy in this situation, over two years later, is simply wikilawyering. --W. D. Graham 12:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole "in place for over 20 months" argument only works if it's 20 reasonably quiet months. If it's a 20 month war of constant objections, then it is meaningless. My 'discussion' on removing it began in 2011, sure, I wasn't here before that, but the discussion certainly was. From day dot it's objections and discussion on removing it. Suppressing other editors until they leave isn't consensus. Claiming 20 months or 20 years is flawed when there is no harmony. Penyulap _talk 21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well here is the diff with no consensus or discussion on the talkpage in 2008. After the uproar, here is James trying to sort it out by bringing everyone together, giving everyone a say in a poll. Then next edit, Ckatz picks a side in the debate, (British) plus says "A poll is actually not needed" in his first edit to the talkpage as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong here Ckatz, you seem better at finding these bits and pieces. Next edit is responding as, what looks to me more like a regular editor, mentioning funding cuts which is probably why I asked for someone uninvolved to assist, so it won't look as if he is taking sides and being an admin at the same time, he will look better that way, I like Ckatz, I look forward to working with him and I want him to look professional (and yes I am being sincere here). As for myself, the suggestion that I am somehow using my position as a contributor, that's false, I take great care so as not to be picking a side in the war, even though I don't need to, because I'm trying to bring all of you together. (seriously guys, if your going to pick a person to call language-biased, try to pick someone who is mono-lingual at least, ok?) Here is what I am trying to do, when people arrive and ask 'why is it in British' telling them there was a consensus 'somewhere' is embarrassing, the only thing to point to is no consensus at best and what someone called 'misbehavior' at worst, and clearly is not harmonious, or going to make anyone involved look good. The best thing to do is remove the offense, conduct yourselves a little poll, (I don't care to start one) and then have something to point to. I will not suggest American, I commit to that here and now. I would either be outlandishly neutral or abstain, as I did want to suggest Jedi as a variant. Yep, there is a religion and a people called Jedi, who speak English I believe, have their own phrases and so forth, and there are quite a few of them too. Whilst it is serious enough as it is the fourth largest religion in England and Wales and we have a national ties, for example, space, plus the whole light-saber and cupola thing going on, so hey, it's serious enough, at least people who suggested I was somehow not serious would write it off as me trying to prevent any more ill-feelings with the whole British-American thing as we'd probably need to defer to the wikiproject star wars uninvolved people to arbitrate if required, thereby taking it out of the hot-headed editors hands and calming things down. But I would neither confirm nor deny that.

But regardless of what happened in any future poll, at least we'd have something to point to. Considering how many pro-British editors there are like yourself here hovering about, I can't see how this isn't the best time for you to heal old wounds and make up with everyone by doing the consensus properly as it should be done. Then you could say there it is. If someone asked me I could say there it is. Plus the motion to close is far far too complicated for anyone to agree to. You need to make it simple to make it inoffensive. Find common ground that people can agree on for whatever reason they choose. They don't have to choose harmony, they don't have to choose making up, they don't have to choose shutting everyone up, they don't have to admit any wrongdoing, you just find the common ground. Something where nobody has to explain anything, they can all choose their own reasons, plus you get a free extra vote for your side WD, just to show I am on your side. How about it, we could go on to have something to point to finally. Penyulap _talk 14:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Simple motion for closure

• I propose removing the template.
• I propose closing the discussion.
• Penyulap will vote British if there is any vote in the next 6 months.

---

• support as proposer ((inserted text) expires upon archiving), also happy for collapse boxing after a day, or manual archiving after a week, up to you guys. Penyulap _talk 14:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Epitome of the argument comment There is no consensus on this talkpage for any variant. There never was any consensus, so claiming The issue was discussed, and the current format was chosen by consensus. or there was discussion before the conversion occurred. is, what's the word, oh yes, CRAP. Even when people objected, and consensus was attempted and failed, you turned the entire thing around, but why ??? if it was a tied up no consensus, why skew it back to front ? it's the same both ways. The section and objection was "Changing this article from American English to British English" that's American-> to-> British and you turn it around to a poll in the opposite direction change the article from British English to American English. That's British-> to-> American. What was that about ? aren't they bamboozled enough with the whole status quo crap ?' The idea that this shit is "a monument to the failure of the Wiki process." doesn't come close, it doesn't come near. The process used to place the template and keep it there is the largest steaming pile of dog turd epic fail in the history (wait this is wiki, so maybe there are bigger ones out there, but this is the biggest I can hope to come across, ever. (but then I only edit space articles really, and don't get out much, but no, wait this is freaking nuts.)) There is no consensus, help me BUILD a consensus please, I beg you, I NEED ALL THE EDITORS BACK because I can't edit for shit. I need their help here or the article will be half arsed forever. I'll vote any way you want me to WD, I'll vote Egyptian, Jamaican, Jedi, Hexadecimal, Morse code you just say the word. I'll go and get James, and beg and grovel for him to vote any way you want and then you'll have the two biggest contributors voting any way you desire, but please, let us build an actual consensus, even a 'I can't believe it's not butter' consensus would be better than this Epic fail, so Come on ! Let me HELP YOU BUILD SOME HARMONY (ok I won't ask for a grouphug I promise), but come on, lets get those editors back please ! _{(this fantastic offer will of course expire if some uninvolved admin mosies along and notices anything slightly amiss with that template, and decides to, oh, I dunno, remove it so we can have a little vote and get any old consensus at all)} Penyulap _talk 22:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Previous discussion

Letting everyone know that I'll remove these templates soon. Consensus was not gained first to change the variant, and no consensus has been gained since then. Consensus must be gained before change, (or failing that after). If anyone wants to show me where consensus for a change to the current variant was gained I'd appreciate it. Penyulap _talk 05:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}  Declined

Requesting removal of edit notice templates. Commonality has been used for attitude/altitude. It's working fine. The phrase 'orientation (attitude)' doesn't get corrected the way phrases like 'control the stations attitude' used to get changed all the time. Not even one little 'orientation (ghey)', 'nothing but net' there.

As per Jason Quinn's remarks above, there never was a consensus to change the article to a eng:var. After a great deal of discussion and searching and asking the editor who inserted the notices in the first place, no consensus for change has been found. No consensus for the change existed and no consensus is likely to occur any time soon.

There is more discussion related to this issue on the MOS discussion page, which is now in archives, here looking for a proper solution to the ongoing problems this is causing. Looking for a proper solution here as well, in accordance with the proper procedures for ENG:VAR, these notices should never have been inserted in the first place. Although it's a fix for this page, the problem will still go on everywhere else and needs addressing. If the notices aren't removed this is just going to drag out longer. It's not going away. If it's left it will be here long after I'm gone, editors hit this article on a regular basis. All other spaceflight articles are without notices. All daughter articles of this one have no notices. That works well. Penyulap _talk 01:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no apparent consensus to make the changes you're proposing above, and no reason to remove the edit notices. This has been discussed repeatedly. Sorry, declined. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Always makes me smile when you come out of the woodwork my friend. You are missing the point here Ckatz, there was no consensus for the change. Please, feel free, correct me on that one, one little diff to a proposal for British, love to see it. If there was no consensus for the change, why on earth does there need to be consensus to fix it ? Or if consensus was not needed for the change, why is it suddenly necessary now ? You've got the perfect catch-22 right here on this page, and that's your platform is it ? A little too shaky for me. I'll go with the policy, the one stated on the template itself. That ENG:VAR "should not be changed without broad consensus." well, where is the "Broad consensus" tell me and I'll shut the hell up. Otherwise I'm going to keep looking for the answer either here or off on the policy pages or wherever. The article keeps getting ENG:VAR hits, even if you could shut me up over this, I can't see how you can shut up ALL the editors and force your stated British preference on them. Penyulap _talk 09:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to ask 'why British' that would be like asking poly why he wants a cracker. Penyulap _talk 12:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you've all but stated that you intend to edit war until you get your way. That would be highly inadvisable, especially given that you did not receive support for your position when you brought it up at a MOS page. --Ckatz^chat_spy

"(Standardize to BrEng, per Penyulap's observation of inconsistencies in the text) " Oh that made me laugh so hard I almost laid an egg. When did I ever notice anything inconsistent in the text ? seriously ? Why do I get the credit for an idea like that ? I've never ever had a problem with the text of that article. Have I ever put the apostrophe in the right place for it's or its' or is it its ? Who knows, not me, the copyeditors, who do such a brilliant job are handling that. The only thing I notice is that these little flags cause a lot of trouble. If editors didn't arrive at this battlefield and see the flag, they wouldn't grab their popgun and start charging about in a huff to defend their homeland. It's the editors I observe, not the text. I have no clue if american is the -ize or the -ise, I would kindof guess -ize, am I right ? And these problems are easy to fix too. Do you remember how everyone used to attack the lead section where it said "Assembled"?... every 5 minutes they'd go nuts over it. I fixed that problem good and proper by taking away that word, I took away the word and the year and anything that caused trouble for them, and now look at the lead, when was the last time that got hit ? I can't even remember. I'd have to look it up. Do you remember the ATTitude ALTitude problem ? I changed that to orientation, and who has attacked that eh? I put orientation(attitude) and haven't even got one orientation(Gay) yet from some little kid. This isn't Brain surgery, it's just rocket science. If an article is well written, you don't even need refs for it, except to satisfy the rules. When it's craply written, editors attack it constantly to fix it. Vandalism==crapo. warring==crapo. Even I used to war over how many space station projects there were, we all did. Nobody knew, even editors. Lolz. Now it's well-written we can all see what is correct. Anyhow, as to warring, you'll have to pick the spot better, and it's not "Program" vs "Programme" though I'll wait until some other editor wars with you over that, and then I'll show you both how it's done properly. I love you Ckatz, I just wish you'd get to pick the winning horse once in a while. I feel bad when someone I so admire looks a bit silly(were not talking look silly like me mind you, nothing as monumental or professional as that) but this program+me thing just looks like, well, beneath you. Personally, I would have picked uncivil or something, you can get closer on that one, because I'll support you, heck, I have reported myself to ANI for uncivil. And the MOS thing is such a totally separate issue, I don't look for support there for changes to the article here. I look for a global cure to this childish problem, and I am getting closer. I've got a lovely idea about it now, can't wait to see if it's a workable cure. (P.S. please do get me banned, but make sure it's global, because I want to get some Real Life stuff done, and I think I'd hang about and fix this article in it's 76 other languages, I am that addicted) Penyulap _talk 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why the multi-paragraph bit above was needed; you wrote "And "programme" just took another hit" in the preceding section. A quick check revealed that there were a number of such inconsistencies. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm left wondering why it can be interpreted as any kind of suggestion that I'm not NEUTRAL in all of this BRIT vs US stuff. I didn't suggest the editor did the wrong thing, he's doing what so very many do, so how can it be wrong. If anything, people could make the opposite inference, and be left thinking I support that editor. The whole thrust of my observation is, that whatever it is this ENG:VAR is supposed to be doing, it is so failing, it's swimming against the tide of the stream of editors who are arriving and changing the article. When I read your edit summary "(Standardize to BrEng, per Penyulap's observation of inconsistencies in the text)" it looks like your trying to use me to get around the 3RR yourself, although I'm not keeping count of how many times you've done the +me thing, are you ? If the edit summary was read on it's own, it looks like I may have suggested there was a problem. Anyhow, the whole thing kind of gives me some more ideas about the mos, so it's all great. Penyulap _talk 10:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a fair idea that concensus on the VAR is likely to change. That aside for the time being, I'd propose the Attitude/Altitude is removed, as the commonality solution of orientation works just fine, it hasn't been edited over as far as I know, ever since I popped it in there, which was a long time ago now. Penyulap _talk 17:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think it is likely to change? What circumstances are different now to when this was originally discussed? You've already raised it twice, other discussions have also taken place, but no consensus has emerged, and nothing new has been stated. Repeating the same discussion solely in the hope that it might yield a different outcome is simply disruption and abuse of process. --GW… 20:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well the article's largest contributor, colds7ream (I know you know this, but others don't) was always pro-British and changed it to British. He seems to have given up on the idea now. I'm not saying he has anything more than one vote, but he has the most respect from me, and a few others. The consensus always got carried through as locked by the 'status quo' idea. (some mistakes are built to last). I'm not saying that Ckatz is getting tired of arguing with people who slice off the 'me' from program, I think he has plenty of energy for it. Anyhow, it becomes less of a 'thing' as time passes and I fix things up on common ground. I'm changing 'program' to 'project' everywhere it works well in the article next time it 'gets hit' as I call it, to see how that goes. Project seems to be reasonably stable, it has a good few mentions now and no-one seems to mind. Plus, whose native language is British anyhow, or what was/is the national tie, who is here to wave the flag for British as a content writer. There are some, but how many of them care. I keep pushing commonality into the article and orientation rather than attitude, and it seems to matter less and less. Penyulap _talk 02:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to convert to US in that manner won't fly, and would be considered disruptive and abuse of process. There have been enough discussions resulting in "keep it British" to make any future ones more-or-less moot. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Well suit yourself. I'll not spoil the party by taking away those '+me's you so enjoy. But naturally I'll continue to write 'project' where it's suitable as I go along adding material. I just don't see these arguments as a good way to spend my precious time on earth. If there was a more stable article, people could use their energy where it's needed more. You say moot, I say change is not only a law of the universe, but inevitable in this article's VAR, the '-me' editors are a constant flow, there is no chance they will stop. Penyulap _talk 11:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Repeating my request for the removal of edit notice template. Commonality has been used for attitude/altitude. It's working fine. The phrase 'orientation (attitude)' doesn't get corrected the way phrases like 'control the stations attitude' used to get changed all the time. Not even one little 'orientation (ghey)', 'nothing but net' there.

It's been about 7 weeks from my original proposal and there haven't been any objections. So I'd like to see how it goes without this template, I expect it's one less thing we need. Penyulap _talk 06:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(Inserting clarification note)This repeated request is not for Eng:var it is for attitude/altitude The request made in this section was a two part request. The repeated request, here, is specifically and only for the second part of the original request. (but consider either as you wish) Penyulap _talk 00:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to oppose this. There is clearly no consensus to remove the en-GB template, and I don't see what harm the continued presence of the attitude/altitude template is doing - such terms could come up again in the future. --GW… 08:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Administrator note I might suggest that in the absence of consensus either way, the default should probably be no edit notice until a consensus does develop. I would also be inclined to give Penyulap's request (as a major contributor to the article) some added weight. However to help me evaluate the situation it would be helpful if someone could point me towards the previous discussions on this issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Martin, here are some archived discussions on the issues: Early 2009 RfC, Dec 2009, end of 2010, June 2011. I find it unfortunate that American English wasn't simply used from the start, because then nobody would really complain. But the WP:ENGVAR guideline points to British English: The first edit in the article's history where there is a difference in English varieties is this 2002 edit, where the word "kilometres" is used. Also the article's "first major contributor" (which one could argue was Colds7ream) used British English (which is what was used when it was promoted to FA). And as I argued in this thread, the guideline WP:TIES doesn't really apply to the ISS.

  But unfortunately this whole discussion will keep coming up, and is a waste of editor time; which is why I find it unfortunate American English wasn't used, because then the problem would go away. Mlm42 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

(inserted edit....Removing my request for a moment until GW has a chance to say if he still objects Penyulap _talk 12:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)) Sorry guys it seems I wasn't being clear enough about this, the original request 7 or so weeks ago was a twofold request, to remove two notices, one had been discussed and it's like some people haven't really given up on eng-GB as yet, which is all good, I'm not asking for any change there, I'd much prefer everyone agrees first really. My request today is referring to the other half of my original request, I guess it was overlooked really. It's for this notice here:

This is the part I am asking about today, just this part. I've pretty much discussed it above, and it seems there aren't any comments or concerns regarding my thinking on it's removal. Penyulap _talk 11:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GW, it is still in the article, as attitude, but it seems that qualifying it with orientation (attitude) worked really well, the places it's unqualified are doing well as it's in more technical sections. I'm figuring that people who are attracted by the launch table are reading and learning, and then know whats going on. I am thinking that it's easier to add a tiny note, in the article, so that the article does what an article is supposed to do, that is, explain what it is talking about. That way we don't need a warning notice. If there are less warning notices then people are more likely to read them, no ? The GB will be more prominent (nudge) (nod). Penyulap _talk 12:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this notice for now. Please continue to discuss the ENGVAR issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll keep an eye out and ask for it's return if it's causing any extra workload. As for the Eng:var, I'm not up to anything there, just waiting for a few editors to run out of steam on the issue. relaxing on the issue is inevitable, I can wait. Penyulap _talk 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent attempt to remove one of the talk page templates without further discussion. You have provided no evidence that the template is doing harm, and from your comment that you are "waiting for a few editors to run out of steam", I would suggest that the real reason you want to remove the template about discussions being restated is because it harms your position if you keep trying to restart discussion yourself and that template is there. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 14:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting discussion, I gave my reasons, now you've giving my reasons, I'm thinking at some point the 'reliable source' for what I'm thinking is going to be... wait for it...'me'. Anyhow I didn't need to prove the altitude / attitude template was causing damage before I had it removed, is there some reason you don't want a civilized discussion on ENG:VAR to take place ? Are you thinking what I'm thinking, like someone will ask "What has the ISS got to do with Britain ?" Personally I think we could eventually switch off the batman signal, so that our Heroic SuperHamster might return to his real superhero duties, rather than fighting the IP masses. Meh, but that's just me, I don't like to make unnecessary busywork for other editors. I kind of think it's polite to let them know why it needs to be done. Penyulap _talk 13:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Franky, I couldn't care less which dialect it is written in - at the end of the day, what does it matter since both dialects are so similar that anybody can read either - why are you so worked up about it? Past discussions have determined the current choice of dialect, and have determined that the article does not have strong enough national ties to the US to justify changing. Therefore, it should remain the same, since there is no good reason to change, per WP:ENGVAR. Despite there being no change in circumstances, several other editors have raised the issue, presenting absolutely nothing new, simply because they do not like the arrangement. Such discussions have found no consensus to change, and have merely disrupted the functioning of the talk page with editors attacking each other like you are doing now. It would be extremely counterproductive to have discussions on this every few months, and in situations where the same editor is constantly raising the same issue, it is seen as disruptive editing.

Your analogy between this and the altitude/attitude template is flawed in that it did not relate to a controversial issue, and its removal was less likely to cause harm. I have tried to assume good faith of you this far, but since you have stated that you intend to keep raising this question until you get the response that you want, I have to question whether your removal that template was intended to remove something causing harm to the article, or to your personal goal. It could even be interpreted as trying to boil a frog by slowly removing templates and words relating to the current arrangement, until it reaches a stage where a complete change can be achieved without provoking discussion until it is a fait accompli. I doubt if that is your intention, but that is how it could be interpreted.

In principle I have absolutely no objection to holding a civilised discussion on the issue, but I do object to holding one (civilised or otherwise) every few months, which is why that template is present. We just go around in circles, while wasting time arguing points of policy versus nationalism, and nothing constructive comes out of it. I'm fed up of it, and I'm fairly sure that most of the other editors involved are fed up as well. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 14:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

In regards to "and have determined that the article does not have strong enough national ties to the US to justify changing. Therefore, it should remain the same, since there is no good reason to change," this seems to make the false assumption that the article needs to be British or American, that is not the case. The article could be brought into line with all it's related articles, sub-articles and all spaceflight articles. That is, no VAR. Pick a link on the ISS article, and then look at that articles variant, and you'll see there is no variant.

"like you are doing now." I'd like to know who ? or how ? and happy to apologize in advance to said party.

In regards to "In principle I have absolutely no objection to holding a civilised discussion on the issue," I'd like to ask you in a civilized manner what is the national tie to ANY nation, be it British or American. This article was tied to British as it is James's preference, and so that's a logical choice, the circumstances that have changed, which you seem unaware of, is James's changing stance on the issue, his somewhat reduced rate of editing, and my creation of many new sections and the complete re-writing of others. I'm not suggesting my own preference, I'm just saying why James's preference is still required when he doesn't care for it any longer. Or for that matter, back to the beginning WHAT NATIONAL TIE. seriously, I would like 1, repeat ONE. civilized answer. Not the Variant, the national tie. There is no 'round in circles', there is no previous discussion, I have searched the archives and I find no answer to the ISS having a British National tie. One answer, One explanation, is one too many answers to ask for ?

I'm kind of thinking that there oh, may not actually be a national tie. I'm thinking that the endless reediting of the article by the general public, and the re-editing of the article by other editors to reverse it is the "round and round". That is the actual problem here. THAT is what goes on and on and on and on. I'm thinking that new readers have better things to do then endlessly fix what they perceive to be spelling mistakes in the article. I'm thinking that wikipedia editors have better things to do than endlessly argue with the never ending stream of new readers, to keep this particular article alone as a sore thumb amongst all other spaceflight articles, it's the only one with a stated variant.

So please, civilized discussion time, why is the International Space Station as a subject tied to any particular nation ? Lets just settle the issue ONCE. just one time, just for one simple explanation is all I'm after. So it's like please complete this sentence for me "The International Space Station has a national tie because......" Penyulap _talk 14:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

( crickets ).......It's more than a week, and I'm still racking my brain to come up with a national tie. I'm sure that can't be it. Any help here ? anyone ? National tie to Britain ? Penyulap _talk 11:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some words which cannot easily be made dialect-neutral, and attempting to do so would only make the language cumbersome and be severely detrimental to the article's quality. Apart from that, your three paragraph rant completely missed the point, so I was just ignoring it. There are no national ties to the UK, but as has already been discussed ad nauseam, the station's ties to the United States are not strong enough to justify changing from the established dialect. British English isn't being used because it is "James's preference", or mine, or anyone else's. It is being used because it is the dialect which Wikipedia policies and guidelines dictate we should use in this situation. Nothing new here, I just wasted five minutes of my life replying. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 13:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my, I missed your reply, there was so much going on when I just checked the tp history, and saw me yapping away last as usual I didn't notice your reply, so forgive my tardiness. Firstly, thanks for mentioning there is no national tie to Britain. That's pretty much what I had been thinking too, and was at the end of my rope trying to think of one. But as for the MOS mentioning 'in this situation' I'm sure it does not. In fact I don't think the people writing it at the time they typed on their keyboards ever foresaw the ISS talkpage. I'm thinking if they did, they might have paused for a moment of reflection, hesitating long enough to stand up and get themselves a drink of water, or a jug full, before returning to their computer, (and pouring it all over the motherboard). Anyhow, at the moment, what I am wondering, is do you understand that almost all sub-articles of the ISS don't have a VAR template, and that that situation is actually a possible situation for the ISS talkpage ? I, personally, can picture the day when the Talkpage, is once again like it was long long ago, free from any VAR template of any kind. I'm not saying it will occur by 2020, but I can see the day (well, I can also see the end of the world before that day but anyhow). What I am wondering is can you imaging this talkpage without that template ? Is that a possibility ? can we cleave asunder the article from the template without destroying the internet, I really want a serious consideration of the possibility.

What I'm thinking, is it is possible. Part of my secret plan to have a look at what occurs, and find the natural state of the article, what readers themselves prefer. If it looks like peril or impending doom, I shall personally petition our Heroic SuperHamster to assist, and quickly replace the template myself. How does that sound ? Penyulap _talk 14:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "natural state"? --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 17:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When force is not applied to an article, such as editing restrictions, templates, locking the article, basically when everyone is free to edit as they please, the article finds it's natural state, a baseline for the article can be established. You can gauge how much the article sucks then, if it is terrible or pushes one point of view, people try to edit it a lot. If it is a work of art that explains every aspect of a topic from all viewpoints, and all readers are learning from it, they just leave it alone. Like attitude in the article, if we explain it in the article, people just leave it alone. So I'm looking for the 'natural state' of the article, I don't much care what we as editors want, as we can write either way, I can write, and often do, in languages I don't even speak. But I want to know what natural state is best for the article according to the readership. James said he was sick of the war against the natural state ages ago. Me, I'm building the article, and just laughing at the people who waste their time in pointless battle. But I do love superhamster. That makes me smile. Penyulap _talk 07:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works; frankly that would be a disaster for the quality of the article, and worse than changing to American English directly. We'd either end up with dubious editors trying to violate WP:ENGVAR by stealth, an edit war, or an article using several dialects. I fail to see how any of these scenarios are in the interests of the article, or Wikipedia - they only serve Americans editing the article, to make certain actions easier for them. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 08:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, these echo my own concerns that it will bring an end to the internet in general. Is there some way we can stop these 'Americans editing the article' ? maybe an IP based filter, would that work ? Still, in regards to edit wars, we can't say the current situation actually stops edit wars, as the article's history is something of a testament for the opposite viewpoint. Anyhow, I quite need to know more about their 'certain actions' so I can be more vigilant, I've done my best to use 'project' rather than 'programme' to prevent any more blatant defiance using the word 'program', but the insidious creep of 'ize' or 'ise' I am embarrassed to confess to you I can't remember which is which, I just go with the auto-spell checker thing. I feel ashamed to be letting our side down, but I do what I can. Which other words can I bludgeon with commonality ? Can you think of any ? Penyulap _talk 12:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

re "an edit war" well, that's already happened several times, so the current situation hasn't fixed it either, re "an article using several dialects" I think that has already happened. I figure it was unavoidable, plus, my own is pretty much exactly that, several. Unless you mean something else ? Or do you simply mean the spelling of a few words, and nothing else besides ? Penyulap _talk 23:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

New Template

Preempting any removal of the template, I'll ask anyone who does remove it to explain why here. Penyulap _talk 11:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• You shouldn't really make an edit if you know it is going to be reverted - at least you recognise that you are being disruptive, the next step is to stop trying to make a point, and engage in a civilised discussion (you know, that thing you told me you were all in favour of). Your template is clearly designed to incite disruption, only presents your side of the discussion, and contains several factual errors. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the selection of dialect was in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and there was consensus to make the change. There was a subsequent discussion which showed that there was no consensus to override the previous discussion. Please stop being disruptive, and help to make the article better rather than just creating templates designed to incite bad-tempered discussions and incivilty, keep the talk page going round in circles and misrepresent the issue. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 16:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My foresight has nothing to do with my point of view, don't confuse the two. Just because I can predict that you, personally, won't agree with me doesn't mean I am disruptive to other editors, it's just you. "Sho me the consensus" as they say, because you are making a contradictory argument there, claiming on one hand that there was some proposal, and on the other hand it was done in accordance with a guideline. The decision was arbitrary, there was clear opposition to it, which was ignored. And I'm not even on the 'American' side of the fence and yet the blatant disregard for consensus building has got me pointing this out. Now, are you wanting to discuss this seriously, or carry on with templates that claim anyone that disagrees with you, personally, is disruptive ? Penyulap _talk 20:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Now in regards to 'civilized discussion', I think, and James as far as I know, (don't forget he doesn't like me) seems to think that the article has stability issues in regards to how does he put it, masses ? I can't recall, lots of Americans changing the spelling. What do you think, is that a fair statement to say there are lots of people who change the spelling (I don't mean people who change it because of the established VAR, but because they naturally think there are grammatical errors) ? Penyulap _talk 21:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WDGraham, I just noticed you say 'and there was consensus to make the change.' may I ask where that is ? Penyulap _talk 01:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It is somewhere deep in the archives, or one of the FACs or PRs. I can't remember where off the top of my head, I'll look later. As for there being "lots of [American] people who change the spelling", if the article were in American English, what makes you think British editors wouldn't change spellings for exactly the same reasons? --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 08:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Would this be any better then, because you won't need to find it, other people can help out too. As far as the British changing it for the same reason, I think that's not the case, Yes, there would be some, somewhere sometime possibly, although it would surprise me, but I think overall, the vast majority of the convert to British editing is done by eng:var editors, not 'natural state' editors. That's what I foresee, and would quite like to check it out. But I would think that leaving the article without a template would avoid the opposite effect, where Americans war just for eng:var, rather than natural state. Anyhow, that's something I'd like to test out. Penyulap _talk 21:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

My Observations

I think these are fair statements :

• The talkpage shows many strong objections to both British and American ENG:VAR.
• A tally of the objections over the course of the last few years shows there is no clear majority on either side.
• If there ever was a consensus of sufficient size to overwhelm all objections, it can't be found.
• The use of an ENG:VAR template on the talkpage is not exempt from consensus.

No talkpage ENG:VAR template should be used until a consensus can be established on which VAR to use. Obviously the article will be written in some var or the other, I'd suggest that the spelling be left up to the newbies and guild of copy-editors to arrange as they see fit, so long as they aren't involved in the conflict. Editing just to war over the spelling is considered naughty and is subject to glaring -(O)-(O)- and the other stuff, but I can't see that being necessary, I foresee the war pretty much dissolving once the flag is taken away. If that is not the case, and the internet does come to an end, I'll assist in a new solution.

If nobody can find fault with this clear thinking, then in a little while I shall repeat the other half of my original request. Penyulap _talk 06:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Given that British English was the first dialect used in this article, that is considered its natural state, and in the absence of a consensus to change, WP:ENGVAR states that it should be retained, regardless of objections or a lack of continuing consensus to support it - you don't seem to understand how this works, but it must start somewhere, and it is this starting state that is retained if there is no consensus to do otherwise - the template is just clarifying this. Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus, not majority, so it should only be removed if a clear consensus is formed to remove it. Indeed the presence of the template is not exempt from consensus, but one against one is not consensus, so you have no consensus to remove it. From your comment about the "flag" causing the edit war, perhaps you should take your objections about the design of the template up on the template's talk page rather than making cavalier decisions to remove the template from articles, regardless of the damage that its removal could do. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 07:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no real objections to the dialect of the article, it's the template that is the bother. It is the red flag to the bulls. It promotes the warring and that is something we can do without. I shall be making some suggestions regarding changes to the MOS later, to address things like "WP:ENGVAR states that it should be retained, regardless of objections" for example. As it is, I do not believe that the MOS needs clarification to overturn the addition of the template itself. It's clearly unpopular, any template is unpopular for this article, and I shall be sort-of surprised if the next admin to answer my request also believes there is a great deal of "damage that its removal could do." I just looked at the Mir article, and it's a good article, with no template, I can't see the impending doom quite as clearly as I can see a settling. I think that vandalism for the article has dropped off to something like once a month, but I might be wrong, I'd like to see it drop off entirely (well, maybe a quarterly, or annual event). Penyulap _talk 08:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I just went off and had another read of ENG:VAR, and I couldn't find the phrase "regardless of objections". I found regardless a few times in abbreviation and punctuation sections though. But I did find the eng:var paragraph says "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." it looks to me like if we were to go back and look at any few years we might find that the spelling over the years might not have actually been British who knows, I don't. I wouldn't want to have to go and pull out the rug and hand over the article to those "Dubious" sneaky Americans, but you know, if I am called upon to do as much, for the sake of the articles stability, I just might consider it. But I DON'T think that's a good idea really, I'd rather NO little flag at all. If I had to choose between a flag and no flag, and considered which flag would keep the article stable, I'm not sure. (even though it couldn't be too hard to look at the article every 6 or 12 months to see just which Variant applies to "consistent usage established in an article," I do know that at the moment people are fond of pointing to the spelling of one word, but I am not sure that a single instance can really define the word consistent quite as convincingly as I think I could define it. But I haven't checked, because I don't yet care. Penyulap _talk 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. I think that while the template may encourage a troll or two, you're always going to get that. What it does do is prevent good-faith mistakes. With regards to consistent usage, I know for a fact that at the time of the first FAC (which occurred shortly before the dialect selection was made and the template was added), one of the quality issues raised with the article was that it contained a mixture of dialects. Either way, British English is now in consistent usage, so it should be maintained in the absence of a consensus to do otherwise. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 12:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable going into this, as it only serves to highlight James possibly misunderstanding the MOS, which is poorly written, and I have respect for the contributions James has made to this article. What you refer to, about the mixture of dialects was noticed here in the FAC.

I just realized that there is quite a bit of "British" english in the article, while most of it is American oriented, especially the dates. analyse, programme, kilometres, tonnes, pressurised. I'm not quite into the finer details of US vs. UK spelling. I'm not sure what to do in these cases.

— --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So what TheDj was pointing out, is that the article was written in American English("most of it is American"), and TheDJ had noticed James had been inserting "quite a bit of" British.

The Manual of Style says that you should decide upon a dialect and stick with it; I think the general unspoken agreement was that given the article also discusses European and Russian spaceflight, which are predominantly written in British English (see Salyut 6, for instance), that was the best way to go.

— Colds7ream (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here, James refers to Salyut 6, where the talkpage even today has had only 25 edits, hardly an analogue of the ISS. James inserted the British banner onto the Salyut 6 talkpage when he created that talkpage, so no discussion was required at all.

I don't see bringing this up as helpful, because James stating "the general unspoken agreement" shows there was no consensus. Clearly here where he makes a declaration The dialect has been standardized to en-GB and inserts the template, there is no consensus on the talkpage regarding the change. Are you just trying to get the article changed over to American English ? I thought you were in the British camp, at least if I didn't have to drive my point home this far, it could have stayed with the British spelling for a while longer, as it is now, I've had to rip apart the British army's little fortress. The pro-British side is hardly going to thank me for all of this, and it paints me as pro-American, which I'm not, I'm neutral.

I am sure many editors are aware that I am multi-lingual, and can also speak many dialects of English (and spell most of them badly) like when I speak with newbies, I try to match their dialect, so imagine the situation if you would, that as someone who has written a good deal of this article, I was simply to shove in for example, a different template onto the talkpage. Then quote "most of the spaceflight articles are in Hong-kong English" or "there is a general unspoken agreement that Jamaican English is the standard." Then all of the same uproar would result as the British decision did. Just because no template was on the talkpage previously doesn't give license for this soft of thing, consensus must be considered. I see nothing about the British decision that follows consensus. I don't care for any variant whatsoever, but at the rate it is going we'll have an american article in no time if I must keep discussing this. Penyulap _talk 21:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of that interpretation (the later discussion established that British English was correct since both British and American were present in significant quantities, and the first dialect to be introduced was British), the article is now established in en-GB, and internal consistency has been achieved. How we got here is irrelevant, and trying to use your interpretation of a comment made in an FAC over three years ago would at best be a case of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted, and at worst wikilawyering. For the record, I am pro-status quo, irrespective of dialect, which is the only justifiable position afforded by WP:ENGVAR. I would also point out that it is illogical to propose a change away from the status quo whilst claiming to be neutral. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 23:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the essay makes me think if that is what passes for an essay on a good day, I should try my hand at writing some. I couldn't possibly work out what it is trying to say, so how hard can it be to write one of those things. I couldn't see how it related to the 'case' in hand, so if you can point that out, cool. What I don't really agree with is the part where you say "How we got here is irrelevant" because along with the status quo position, I see my first staunch supporter for when I drink too much coffee and decide the article would look best with a Jamaican flavoring. Am I right to say it won't matter how I do it, you'll support it no matter what ? I'm pretty sure I can find lots of typical historical Jamaican expressions in the article, along with plenty that I've introduced along the way as well. As far as the horse has bolted, how long do I have to hold the article in Jamaican before it can't be challenged anymore, how far does the horse have to get from the gate measured in weeks or years ? Penyulap _talk 01:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

While I can see that there are valid concerns about reverting, I can't really see that they are sufficient to outweigh other editors concerns over the lack of consensus. If the spelling were a real concern to article quality, I for one should be banned, as you can see I accidentally introduce more grammar and spelling errors than any change could come up with. I can't see how the many editors who have commented about the arbitrary decision could have been more vocal or expressed stronger concerns about it. Those concerns, which have been expressed in the strongest terms possible, and by so very many editors certainly must outweigh things like spelling mistakes, surely. Penyulap _talk 00:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Whilst WDGraham has made some fair statements regarding the disastrous effects that changing the spelling would have on article quality, I think the larger issues are actually more pressing. The change that was made in the complete absence of any prior discussion is clearly NOT in line with consensus. Although WD says "How we got here is irrelevant" I think that it is important, and other editors are unhappy. My favorite would be the dramatic "This article is a monument to the failure of the Wiki process. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2011" or maybe where it was said "this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen carry on here on Wikipedia" ohms law but that's probably because I like reading to be entertaining and keep you interested, whereas there are down to earth articulate ones like "This is espeically jarring, since most of the primary sources for the article are NASA websites, which, of course, use US English. The current state of the article goes against Wikipedia policy (the equivalent would be if the Oscar Wilde article used US English, despite it's subject having a UK origin). 72.207.232.42 (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)" and neutral recognition of the problem "(British English )...it has caused a lot of strong feelings in the past.." --Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then of course there is this bit here, a lovely little read, and GW once again claims there was consensus but I think I have clearly established together with GW there is no consensus at all. I do think it is quite time to remove the offending template and do things properly. Penyulap _talk 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC) {{editprotected}} I think I agree with Martin where he said above " Administrator note I might suggest that in the absence of consensus either way, the default should probably be no edit notice until a consensus does develop..." — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC) So as there have been exhaustive attempts to find any previous discussion prior to the insertion of the template, and no consensus found after, I'd request that the ENG:VAR template on the edit notice page here for the article be removed, so that discussion can take place with less confusion. Penyulap _talk 04:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In a word, "no". Hammering away at this over and over again is disruptive and counterproductive. Please instead focus the effort on the article rather than dredging this up again. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Ckatz, you are pro-British, I haven't ever heard you ever say otherwise, have you ? What is the problem with allowing everyone else to have their say too ? They never had the chance to comment on it before the template was inserted, and so many seem rather dissatisfied by that. Is this simply to eliminate the possibility that the majority of people may not want British and may get the chance to say so if the template was removed and they had the chance to comment on the variant ? Seems to me doing things right and properly would be the way to go, but is there some major problem with allowing other people to do a bit of consensus building ? As you are well aware, I don't care what variant this article is. Penyulap _talk 11:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me popping the answered flag back the other way, on account of you answered the first request rather hastily also, I think if someone takes the time to read and consider the request properly, that would be better. i think it's quite reasonable. But feel free to let me know if you have read everything properly. Penyulap _talk 11:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To me this has dragged on for way to long. I raerly edit the ISS page anymore because of this dispute, and others that have gone on. I am a Canadian and can write both way's, so I don't really have a preferance. But my thought is, since the majorty of the article was written in EN-BR, then we should bring the rest of the article into that style. Kind of like the dates, they were all over the place (DMY and MDY), but now they for the most part are DMY. As for no one speaking up on the variant of English used, the warning IMHO had nothing to do with it. I think people didn't really care, so they didn't say anything. Anyone could have brought this up here or started an RFC. Which is where I think this should be taken, instead of making this talk page so long and boring to scroll through.--NavyBlue84 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, are you just going to keep reverting the administrator who closes that request until you find one who agrees with you? Regardless of what has gone before, the article is currently in a stable state and therefore a consensus would be needed to change from that. And speaking of consensus, I can see none for the edit which you have, yet again, unilaterally requested. Just drop it --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a long way from any shopping WD, I simply noted that Ckatz is so very busy that he initially overlooked my original request about attitude/altitude, and think he may have overlooked the problem of editors continually complaining that there was never any consensus to insert the eng var template. I'm not suggesting that Ckatz stated preference for British has anything to do with it, he's a good editor, and very busy. I don't agree with "Regardless of what has gone before" or "How we got here is irrelevant" because I think that completely ignores the wikipedia process, how does Jason put it, ah yes, "failure of the Wiki Process", Whilst I'd dearly love to ignore the masses of editors who complain, I can't find anywhere in the MOS or guidelines how many weeks the template has to remain with no consensus before we can simply, how do you say, ummm, "Regardless", "irrelevant" no I think I'm looking for "ignore everyone" actually. Can we just point to a minority that has agreed, like where two or three editors say British, and call that the consensus that overwhelms all other points of view ? I think that would be a lot easier. But it doesn't solve people leaving. I see NavyBlue doesn't edit anymore because of this, I see Ohms Law avoids helping and they are certainly not the only ones, and NavyBlue notices this also. Are we allowed to have like one of those 5 hour polls like I did before, where one or two editors get to have their say and then some pro-British editors call for the RFC to be shut down and archived ? We could point to that as the consensus, but I can't see where we can ignore the wider opposition to template, from the other editors. I'd like to know where it says that in policy, have you seen it anywhere ? Also, why do you say the request is 'unilateral' ? if you are having trouble finding other editors who are dissatisfied with the ENG:VAR template, I shall be happy to assist you in finding them, would you like me to point using diffs or links, or use quotation blocks, I can summarize the archives if you'd like, or just the ones in this section, I am here and happy to help everyone. Penyulap _talk 05:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't presume to speak for me; time has nothing to do with it, as it is clear what you are trying to do (and what you have been doing for a very long time). Frankly, give it a rest. You've not been able to get support for this, and you're only doing damage to your reputation by refusing to let go. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for presuming. I would like to point out in that it has nothing to do with ME giving it a rest, as there is nothing I am saying that the MASSES are not saying, I mean, does this look familiar?

• I have checked this articles history, and found this article evolved primarily in American English. Also, there was never a popular consensus to convert this article to British English in the first place. Because this article should have never been switched in the first place, it should be switched back. This is completely allowable under the style guidelines. I know this whole language war is frivolous, but it seen=ms even more pointless that someone would change the article to British English. Also, this page seems to be written in mixed English anyways, so I can't think of any reason for me not to change it. 69.204.97.101 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
• I was under the impression that the espoused policy, at least, was that majority rules at Wikipedia... ..British English.. is incorrect.. In any case, the above individual is incorrect that only one lone dissenter is voicing an opinion that the article should be in American English if for no other reason as that is Wikipedia policy (not to mention the correct thing to do). I'll sit back for a while and see whether this correction is made. jmdeur 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've reviewed the archives in the discussion pages and have not found were the change was clearly mentioned and voted upon 70.170.125.247 (talk)

Past or present, you take your pick, it's not 'just me' it's the apparent majority of editors. This page, the archives, pick a page, pick a period, anything in the time continuum from the point that the ENG:VAR template was inserted without prior discussion, to the place where there is no template, and also to an extent until the point in time where there is some little poll with support and oppose or more likely British and American and Jamaican :) in the absence of the offensive template which serves only to confuse with status quo, and they are there. Lots of them, Editors, editors everywhere saying "it's a monument to the failure of the Wikipedia process" Look, we all know we can silence me, but what about them, can we silence everyone so we can ignore the lot of them, ignore Wikipedia process and have our own little blog going on? Can we make them all leave before they arrive, rather than after, because that would cure the retention thing, by preventing their arrival in the first place. Maybe it's like how I can see mistakes in the article nobody else can see, like I can see all these other editors who aren't happy, but other editors can't see them at all, and think there is no problem in the world at all.

Let me point out, that I am not the 'lone dissenter that is voicing an opinion that the article should be in American' as I am Neutral, or maybe Jamaican, which naturally has no hope whatsoever of being adopted, but would be my participation in the fresh breeze of freedom to have one's say, which so many editors (which I'm sure many people just can't even see at all) have no had at all. not yet. Penyulap _talk 07:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to double-check with you Ckatz can you correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.

• There was no discussion prior to the insertion of the template.
• The insertion was very unpopular.
• There has been no consensus since saying it should be kept.

Are those three points correct ? Penyulap _talk 08:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's suppose (without prejudice to my own position), for a second, that the decision to standardise on British English was inappropriate, and that we should revert to the state before that. By the same logic, the original conversion from British to American English was also inappropriate and there was no indication of a consensus to make that change either, so the state which we should revert to is the one before that, which was British. We can either accept that this article is established and stable in British English, or we can revert to the last state which was not changed to "without consensus", which is British. Either way, there has never been a consensus for this article to be in American English. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

exactly ! let's pull the template out and start again, and this time do it properly so everyone gets a say. Of course that assumes any of them are willing to return. It's rather uncivilized to have people spend pages and pages of text on my talkpage telling me that I shouldn't discuss anything, but I think it's worth trying to salvage wikipedia from the garbage.

To pre-empt the "But the internet will explode without a template" response, I'd like to gently point out that the MIR article is still there (let me check) yep, it's still there, and in fact it's a 'Good article', wow. Penyulap _talk 09:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point and also dragging this out endlessly. The matter has been discussed repeatedly, with no decision ever reached to switch to US English, and after a certain point it becomes pointless to drag it up over and over again. You cannot "win" by doing so, and it is in fact recognized that such actions are not permitted - editors cannot keep dragging the same issue back to the talk page in the hopes of finally getting their way. Put the energy you're wasting on beating this dead horse into something more productive instead. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point and also dragging this out endlessly. The matter has been discussed repeatedly, with no decision ever reached to switch to British English, and after a certain point it becomes pointless to drag it up over and over again, which is causing many editors to leave.

I think the problem here is that where one pro British editor has found another pro-British editor they consider that consensus, and ignore all points to the contrary by the majority of other editors, it may well be that way, but I can't find that anywhere, and support the other editors who say that is not wiki policy. Penyulap _talk 09:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You are the one causing the disruption; you are the one who insists on prolonging and persisting with the debate. You are the one who is wasting our time. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(moved from my talk page, where it does not belong)

Hi Ckatz, how are you ? Why have you taken out my request? is it because you have a stated opinion which is pro-British and pro-no discussion whatsoever, and differs to other admins opinions? Is there some reason why you don't want any other admin to consider the request ? does it have anything to do with Martin saying that there probably shouldn't be a template there at all until there is a consensus ? are you worried about the article not being in your favorite language anymore ? What's going on there ? Penyulap _talk 09:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, did you actually read the template? It clearly states:

"This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus."

The simple fact that this discussion is under way clearly indicates no consensus exists. You use the request after discussion reaches a consensus, not before. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been linking and pointing to consensus all day, I think Jason, at the top of the section said it best "This article is a monument to the failure of the Wiki process". Penyulap _talk 09:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then Martin followed up with "Administrator note: I might suggest that in the absence of consensus either way, the default should probably be no edit notice until a consensus does develop. ". Penyulap _talk 09:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then Mlm42 laments "I find it unfortunate that American English wasn't simply used from the start, because then nobody would really complain."

I am just wondering if two or three editors are allowed to count only themselves as a consensus, whilst the wider editor community is clearly at odds and clearly ignored.

Re the template, you use the ENG:VAR template after discussion reaches a consensus, not before. Penyulap _talk 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The template is used to indicate which dialect the article is written in, nothing more, nothing less. If you have an issue with its use in this capacity, then I would strongly suggest that you either nominate it for deletion, or make a proposal to change its usage guidelines. This article is written in British English. If we go back, the first point of divergence was the introduction of the British spelling of "kilometres". Now as I understand it, you would agree that the subsequent undiscussed conversion to American English was wrong, and the article should go back to the previous state since there was never consensus to Americanise the article? Or are you only at odds with matters of process when they cause a decision to go against you? --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I can't really agree with that, as it is just encouraging me to go and make suggestions to change the "According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." to something more like "According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus, which means one person who agrees with you, and the rest are irrelevant." What is a broad consensus anyhow, 3 ? or maybe 3 + one weak support ? is Broad consensus where you get to ignore everyone else, or include them. Maybe it needs defining better, in the template. Maybe your right there, maybe it needs refining, so people have some better idea of what 'Broad' means.

No decision is going against me, you are quite mistaken there as I seriously don't care which variant is used. That has been well demonstrated, it could hardly be any more clear than it is. What I object to is the 'Monumental failure of the wiki process' where objections are labeled "irrelevant". I'm happy for the English variant to be changed daily, even hourly, yes indeed I am, so long as there are no objections. When there are objections however, those editors must be respected and their viewpoints taken into account. Even when their viewpoints won't make it to the article, there are civilized processes which are laid out in policy. Those processes have been skipped and ignored here. There was no discussion prior to the insertion of the template, fine, but there certainly has been widespread objections to it since then. Ignoring those widespread objections is not policy and I don't care how anyone tries to twist minor policy and clutch at straws they will not come close to convincing the majority of editors that it's right or in line with the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia. Other editors are not "irrelevant". Penyulap _talk 02:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, if you don't care what version is used, then why are you dragging this out? Why do you keep bringing this up. If you are trying to change the policy, which it sounds like you are, then this is not the place to do so. I have been around Wiki and the ISS article since I started here three years ago, and have never seen anyone voice an objection until recently. All the people you have pointed out as "objections", don't really sound like objections to the Eng-var situation. If you only get three people voting, and voting is allowed for a week, then that is consensus. Its no ones job to go contact everyone who has edited the article and get them to vote. No one, except yourself has really objected to the Eng-var. To me this is a dead issue, and it should be left the way it is.--NavyBlue84 04:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

with all due respect, citation needed, where does it say a week and so forth, it is true to be sure, but only true where there is no objection, when there is, then that is no definition. Where does it say you can go on ignoring all objections after a week has gone by, I would love to see that too.

You are absolutely correct Navyblue84, I don't care what variant is used, but I do care, and I care a lot about the many other editors who are leaving, call me sentimental but I don't really want to see Wikipedia flushed into the toilet just yet, I'd prefer it had a chance, and prefer the fundamental principles were upheld a little longer until they are better embodied so everyone can understand what 'Broad' means, and why "irrelevant" is not an ideal to be championed.

Sure, we can drive away everyone, that works, and then we have a consensus between the three people on the desert island who are left. Sure the TV show survivor is popular in the US but in many other cultures it's not. I'm not sure the wikipedia foundation and project is based upon that tv show, but hey I've been wrong about things before, maybe I'm wrong here too.

The way forward is to stop labeling other editors views as irrelevant and showing them the door, and to remove the ill-inserted template, and then have a little call for comment where everyone has a say and says things like "British" "American" 'Jamaican" after that, everyone can point to it, rather than saying it's 'buried somewhere in the archives or FAC'. Leave the thing up somewhere, so people can add to it as they please, (maybe I can add it to a faq or just use a collapse box and the shortest possible talkpage section, you know let everyone have a say, even the ones who come here annually to see if the mess has been mopped up yet). We can end all discussion in a civilized way which everyone is happy with as everyone has had an equal say. Penyulap _talk 05:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So, which editors are leaving because this article is written in British English rather than American English? I am not aware of any, and frankly if they're going to be pathetic enough to leave over something that trivial and nationalistic then we're probably better off without them. By the way, I've removed your little vote-stacking exercise above, that is not how discussions work on Wikipedia, you can't just go through the archive and cherry-pick every comment that supports your position, then list it as a !vote in a new discussion. And while we're at it, Wikipedia works on consensus not voting. And you certainly can't deliberately take comments out of context to imply support for you which in many cases is not there. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 08:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why, oh why, is this discussion still going on? I realised a long time ago that it's very unlikely the status quo on this page will change, without some changes to the WP:ENGVAR guidelines - and more importantly, a change in the attitudes across Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Mlm42 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a woefully short little essay, I liked the first one it links to though, the Dead Parrot sketch where the shopkeeper refuses under all circumstances to admit there is anything wrong. Like here, regardless of how many editors have complained, there is no acknowledgement of wrongdoing on the part of the minority. I like the part "a car salesman who repeatedly refused to admit that there was anything wrong with his customer's car, even as it fell apart in front of him." That reminds me ever so much of this page, regardless of how many people say there was no prior discussion before insertion of the template and no matter how many objected to it after the insertion, even before I started editing on Wikipedia, there is like two or three that shall never admit there is a problem. I don't agree with you WDGraham, where you say the editors who have left Wikipedia because of this issue are "pathetic". I don't agree with that at all. Penyulap _talk 03:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you're making something out of nothing. Unless you demonstrate otherwise, it's a safe assumption that nobody has left Wikipedia over this particular issue. This ENGVAR issue isn't a "problem" in the way you perceive it. The real problem is this massive discussion wasting everybody's time. Mlm42 (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 09:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You two are dumbasses. And, now that I've come back and see that nothing has changed at all, away I go again. Have fun with your little corner of the internet here, dumbasses. (Thinking of Red Forman here obviously, but someone will take it for a personal attack anyway. Luckily, the great thing about having written you kooks who inhabit the talk pages here is that I can largely ignore all of you, and I'm a much happier person.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes; and on that note, shall we end this productive conversation? Mlm42 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good tactic there, trying to use my words to your advantage. It'll probably work, too. Oh well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the conversation over someone's shoulder about three or four hours ago when I didn't have time to log in and comment. Actually I've been thinking about that candor, and thinking well, does it take into account due respect(in the situation), does it take into account civility(in the situation), and could it be expressed any more succinctly than that, and after three or four hours, I'm still stumped for any better ideas. Anyhow, I think this talkpage dialect is rather organic, and as the largest contributor to the talkpage by far, I think I spread the word 'crap' about a lot to describe bits of the article a lot, so I'd have to take the blame for the resulting fresh language. Although I do want to point out that I don't think it's very nice to say other editors are 'pathetic' as it sets a bad example others are bound to follow. Penyulap _talk 12:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, also I'm not sure, but I think I just noticed someone who said they are staying away from the article because of this, now what I'd like to know is do you prefer the editors who tell you to your face that they are staying away from this article, like, with the little hint of irony that they came back to tell you before leaving again, or do you prefer the ones who said it and left and haven't returned, because I could make a separate tally of each kind of editor who is leaving because of this issue if you want, or a combined tally as above, I'm just not sure which one you guys would prefer, so Do please let me know, I am only here to help. Penyulap _talk 12:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lolz, I just googled Red Forman, it's an American comedy character and quite funny. I think google images is the best and fastest explanation of the jovial nature. :) I didn't quite get it (before googling). Penyulap _talk 12:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion to close discussion

I believe that:

• Penyulap (talk · contribs) is the only editor who has expressed support for the above proposal
• The !votes added by Penyulap on behalf of editors not involved in this discussion are inadmissible
• At least four editors have expressed objections to the proposal and continued discussion of the issue
• The discussion been open for five months, consists of over 14,000 words and 75,000 characters, none of which has brought us closer to a resolution
• The discussion has been stagnant, completely unproductive and going around in circles for the last five months, and this shows no signs of changing
• The discussion has only been kept alive because Penyulap is refusing to drop it, despite all other participants having grown weary of it
• At least one editor is avoiding editing this article as a direct result of the discussion still being ongoing
• The repeated addition of {{editprotected}} tags to this article, despite the lack of consensus to make a change (and the requirement for said consensus prior to using the template having been made clear), are deliberately and blatantly disruptive, and serve only to "ask the other parent"
• The editor time expended discussing this issue is extensive, and would have been better spent contributing to the article itself or others like it

Therefore, I would like to move that we close this discussion as having found no consensus to remove the tags or to change the dialect of the article, and that we should resolve that no further discussion be held on this issue for a period of no less than twenty four months unless a clear change in circumstances can be demonstrated. --W. D. Graham 19:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Gee seems like this discussion, and others similar to it have been going on a lot longer then five months. I would like to suggest one amendment to the closing reason; I believe if this issue is to be brought up again, it be done so at WP:RFC or another appropriate notice board, and not to be done so by penyulap (talk · contribs) for at least 24 months. Other then that, I give my 1000% support to close the discussion, leave the edit notices in place, and NOT to change the dialect of the article.--NavyBlue84 23:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional support so long as I get to refer to you guys as 'Greycom' and 'Bluecom' from now on, and the binding resolution limits my responses on the talkpage (you know, like for maintaining it) to two things. I can only say 'The Russians are working on it' OR 'I think it's in the Nasa handbook' in response to any question any new editor asks me. If that's the case, I'll be in it voluntarily. Penyulap _talk 00:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: No you may not refer to me as "bluecom". The "resolution" does not limit your responses on the talk page, just the bringing up the whole Eng:var discussion again, at least for 24 months. I supported the close of the discussion and restoration of the templates and not changing the dialect, based on there being no consensus. If you had the consensus, then why did those people not come show the support themselves? This is nothing but a dead horse, and I am done with this discussion. I stand by my initial support of the closing, and will continue to do so.--NavyBlue84 03:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Comment: well that's a shame, I was thinking "what if someone wanders in and says "hey how come this article is British" and then I could say, "I'm sorry we can't talk about that because of the Greycom and ______ ruling forbidding discussion" it doesn't sound as impressive without both. Well, how about I don't bring it up at all unless some other editor brings up the subject first, like an un-jinxing ? That would work, I'd be happy with that if you two agree never to claim there was a consensus which you can't actually point to, and I'll throw in limiting my responses to 'The Russians are working on it" and "Go for it, that's brilliant" to sweeten the deal (with an un-jinxing clause of course). Penyulap _talk 05:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)