User talk:WDGraham/Archive 2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:WDGraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of missions to the outer planets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations!
|
The Space Barnstar | |
| For your numerous contributions to spaceflight content! For excellence in quality, content, and patience. Have a happy 2013 and good luck in all your editing. Fotaun (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luna 4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soft landing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
2013 in spaceflight
Hi WDGraham! I would like to apologize for any confusion that my edits caused on 2013 in spaceflight. I don't wish to run afoul of any established formatting guidelines or conventions. However, I do have two primary concerns with the article. The first is the lack of spaces following flags. {{Flag}} includes a space after flags and before country names, and I only wished to mirror this format in the article. My second concern is that in many places the article is an alphabet soup of unnecessary and unfamiliar abbreviations and acronyms. VAST, AMAKA, CSIC, EIAST, etc. are unfamiliar to most readers and there is no compelling reason to shorten the names of unfamiliar organizations. If column width a stylistic concern, that can easily be remedied by setting it as a fixed value. – Zntrip 22:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I recognise that your edits were made in good faith and were mostly constructive; I have no issue with spaces following flags; they were originally omitted to save space under the old single-line format which is now only used on a handful of pages; I strongly support the inclusion of these spaces and I believe I may have even added a few that you'd missed when I went through the article. I realise that unfamiliar abbreviations can cause accessibility issues, however this is the lesser of two evils compared to the severe accessibility, readability and style issues caused by not contracting them. Fixing column widths would not resolve this, as the column width would still be significantly increased, and many names are simply too long to fit in. In theory the first occurrence of each abbreviation should be linked, so a reader can find information on its meaning, however I realise that this is not ideal and would welcome discussion on finding a better compromise. --W. D. Graham 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to column width, I am not clear on what you mean. The width can remain static by setting a width value in the table's heading. {{TLS-H2}} already sets the total width of the table at 100%. The seven columns can each be allocated a percentage of the total width. The words in a cell may take up two rows, but they will not increase the column's width. – Zntrip 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm concerned about display issues, particularly on small monitors, caused by putting a lot of text into a small, fixed space. I believe there would be some cases where even words would end up being split between lines. --W. D. Graham 23:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- With regard to column width, I am not clear on what you mean. The width can remain static by setting a width value in the table's heading. {{TLS-H2}} already sets the total width of the table at 100%. The seven columns can each be allocated a percentage of the total width. The words in a cell may take up two rows, but they will not increase the column's width. – Zntrip 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Truthfully, on smaller screens, the article will not look as nice, but it will still be readable. I believe it is possible to balance readability with accessibility. – Zntrip 08:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Luna 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page E-6 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Updates are needed in the File:Orbital Launches.svg and File:Orbital launch projects.svg
Updates are needed in the File:Orbital Launches.svg and File:Orbital launch projects.svg
On 31st January 2012, South Korea has launched a satellite into orbit for the first time with its own space program. South Korea has joined the list of countries who are capable of conducting orbital launches. Source: [1]
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.31.34 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'll update it in 2021, when South Korea actually joins "the list of countries who are capable of conducting orbital launches". --W. D. Graham 14:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you elobarate on your answer, because South Korea has successfully launched a satellite into orbit, and this does fit into the category of "countries who are capable of conducting orbital launches". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.62.140 (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Space-related disambiguation links.
Greetings! Can you help fix disambiguation links at 1963 in spaceflight (July–December), 1964 in spaceflight (January–March), and 1974 in spaceflight? Specifically, all of these contain links to the disambiguation page DMA, for which there is no obvious, space-related solution. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Date on Satellite
I've undone this edit because 1885 is obviously not correct. I assume you made a typo, however, could you provide a source for your change? Because we don't have an article on the satellite, it's difficult for me to verify easily. Shadowjams (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- This link says the original date of 2000 was correct. Shadowjams (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TUGSAT-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photometry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding WikiProject:Indian Space Programme
Hello my dear co-editor!
Gaurav Pruthi and I have been thinking over starting a WikiProject for the Indian Space Program. If you are interested in taking part in the discussion regarding the WikiProject, please do leave a message here.
Regards.
Jayadevp13 (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Relating to PSLV
Please show me some sort of proof or at least give me a reference to show that PSLV is a part of the SLV family of rockets. I believe that you are the one to have grouped the rockets on this basis in the pages showing the spaceflights of a particular year. Example of one such page is - 2011 in spaceflight
Regards.
Jayadevp13 (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Salyut space stations
Hi, WDGraham!
Just letting you know, I did change the formatting for List of human spaceflights to Salyut space stations. Normally, this would be discussed on the talk page of the article, but it hasn't been edited in 3 years except by bots, so I don't think I'd get much of an audience there...
Please let me know if this formatting works. I tried to keep as much of the information intact as possible. ~ Matthewrbowker Make a comment! 05:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The Space Barnstar
|
The Space Barnstar | |
| In recognition for List of missions to the Moon, and improving spacecraft articles! Fotaun (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you --W. D. Graham 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of missions to the Moon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Soft landing, Okina and Ouna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for copyediting all those kosmos satellite articles. Secretlondon (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, I had AWB running to fix a few problems in the DS articles I wrote; thought I might as well go through the rest while I was at it... --W. D. Graham 10:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Delfi-n3Xt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Dombarovsky
- List of missions to Venus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Mercury
- Prowler (satellite) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Hughes
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Please see the Cygnus Mass Simulator talk page.--Craigboy (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)--Craigboy (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- A-ONE is non-notable, CMS is and is the agreed place to cover it. That's also why Falcon 9 Flight 1 was merged into DSQU. --W. D. Graham 23:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
ITN credit
 | On 23 April 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Antares (rocket), which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
ThaddeusB (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Phonesat's photos
Hi. There are some photos of PhoneSats, and they are made in NASA (pd-nasa). Can we upload them to commons? `a5b (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- As long as you can prove they are PD, that should be fine. --W. D. Graham 23:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Vega VV02 launch date
How can you know that VV02 will launch on 7 May 2013 at 02:06 UTC??? Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't. Since it's a template and not article content, a rumoured, estimated or NET date will suffice, so I'm using this until we hear something official. --W. D. Graham 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Kosmos 1484 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Georgia (state)
- Kosmos 1805 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Yuzhnoye
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Buggy tool or script?
Hi! I fixed up two Space Shuttle articles that were in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting after your edits corrupted the text: fix one, fix two. You may want to check any other edits you were making using the same tool or script, as there may be a bug lurking. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strange. The edit to STS-1 was manual and I didn't go anywhere near that part of the article. The one to STS-127 was with DabSolver which is a widely used tool... Not sure what's causing that... --W. D. Graham 21:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
new infobox
I had a play with the new infobox on Kosmos 2485. A couple of things: image_size doesn't default to anything. Without adding something my image was full size. It also came up with an red error relating to type - I presumed this was the interplanetary box and when I deleted that section the error went away. Looks good :) Secretlondon (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- It only defaults if the parameter is not present - if the field is present but unset then it will treat that as not having a value - you need to remove the "|image_size=" as well as the value. Off the top of my head, I think the planetary section is the only part of the template that returns red error messages so that sounds about right - it's just a case of removing sections that are never going to be needed for those spacecraft. Other than that, I would advise against using the "previous_mission" and "next_mission" fields for GLONASS, which is more a constellation of concurrently operated spacecraft than a series of individual missions, which is what those fields were designed for. --W. D. Graham 23:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen your changes to K2485. The -gee thing passed me by totally. I think peri should really default to perigee unless specified as the vast majority will be earth satellites. Secretlondon (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- It defaults to "periapsis" which as a less common, but catch-all term. --W. D. Graham 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the spacecraft properties section is working, but I may be missing something. It doesn't show on Eutelsat 3D. Secretlondon (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Couple of parameters missing from the header - didn't show up during testing because I didn't test it with only those parameters. --W. D. Graham 23:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 04:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Cleanup on GOES 13
You seem to have left a partial sentence in the lede of GOES 13 while you were reorganizing it. --Carnildo (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed --W. D. Graham 22:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
Thanks for updating the infoboxes on all those satellite articles! It would have taken me ages (partly because AWB doesn't run on my platform). Secretlondon (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
- No problem; I'm getting the ones that can be done with AWB out of the way so we can see what needs to be done manually. --W. D. Graham 09:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gemini 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I need your advice
Hello! I am here to take your advice before making a change regarding one of the launches of GSLV. Take a look at the article List of Satish Dhawan Space Centre launches. On 18 April 2001, there was a launch of GSLV Mk I(a) from SDSC. My doubt is whether it should be considered a Partial Success or a Failure since it tells that - "payload placed into lower than planned orbit". All other launches of this type have been considered partial success but this one was written a failure in the article GSLV. So I also wrote it accordingly in the List of Satish Dhawan Space Centre launches. But now I have changed it to partial success seeing the case of other launches. If you think I am wrong then revert my last edit to the page. I was right in my approach, then I will make the same change in both of these - GSLV & Satish Dhawan Space Centre First Launch Pad. I am consulting you since I feel that you are much more knowledgeable than me in spaceflight related field. Regards. - Jayadevp13 05:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
One more message different from the above one. Are you sure that the third launch pad of Satish Dhawan Space Centre will have the name Rohini Launch Pad. It is with this name you have added it to the template Satish Dhawan Space Centre. Regards. - Jayadevp13 07:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- The distinction between a failure and a partial failure is whether the payload is still usable or not. In the case of the April 2001 launch, the performance shortfall was such that the payload couldn't be placed into a usable orbit. The 2007 launch, for example, is considered a partial failure because despite the shortfall INSAT-4CR still ended up in the right orbit. GSAT-1 didn't, and couldn't fulfil its mission objectives, therefore it is an outright failure not a partial failure.
- With regards the template, I don't even remember creating it. I don't have a clue where I got Rohini Launch Pad from...I'm pretty sure I was referring to the launch pad used by Rohini sounding rockets, but I can't find any details about that pad. --W. D. Graham 08:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank You for helping me out. I am changing the name to Third launch pad in the template. Just giving an information to you. Rohini sounding rockets are launched only from Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) and not from SDSC. Regards. - Jayadevp13 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Most Rohini launches are from Thumba, but occasionally one is launched from SDSC. I think the most recent one was in 2004. --W. D. Graham 16:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I really didn't know about it. Moreover, I didn't see any such thing written in a Wikipedian page. But this link does tell that there is a complex in SDSC for sounding rockets. - Jayadevp13 17:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Most Rohini launches are from Thumba, but occasionally one is launched from SDSC. I think the most recent one was in 2004. --W. D. Graham 16:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank You for helping me out. I am changing the name to Third launch pad in the template. Just giving an information to you. Rohini sounding rockets are launched only from Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) and not from SDSC. Regards. - Jayadevp13 14:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
| Views/Day | Quality | Title | Content | Headings | Images | Links | Sources | Tagged with… |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 321 | 
|
Coin flipping (talk) | 
|
Add sources | ||||
| 3 | 
|
Kosmos 869 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Add sources | |
| 4 |
|
Kosmos 772 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Add sources | |
| 282 |
|
Apollo–Soyuz Test Project (talk) |
|
Add sources | ||||
| 384 |
|
Deferred compensation (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Add sources |
| 44 |
|
RuBee (talk) |
|
Add sources | ||||
| 24 |
|
STS-101 (talk) |
|
|
Cleanup | |||
| 19 |
|
Sergey Alexandrovich Volkov (talk) |
|
|
|
Cleanup | ||
| 11 |
|
Expedition 9 (talk) |
|
|
Cleanup | |||
| 761 | 
|
Eurocopter Tiger (talk) | Expand | |||||
| 1,017 |
|
Spacecraft (talk) |
|
Expand | ||||
| 944 |
|
Hutterite (talk) |
|
Expand | ||||
| 789 |
|
Benigno Aquino III (talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |||||
| 1,770 |
|
High-speed rail (talk) | Unencyclopaedic | |||||
| 168 |
|
Convair XC-99 (talk) |
|
|
Unencyclopaedic | |||
| 5 |
|
Gongqingcheng (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Merge | |
| 211 |
|
Solar Dynamics Observatory (talk) |
|
|
Merge | |||
| 428 |
|
OSCAR (talk) |
|
Merge | ||||
| 19 |
|
Expedition 25 (talk) |
|
|
Wikify | |||
| 18 |
|
Mikhail Tyurin (talk) |
|
|
|
Wikify | ||
| 15 |
|
STS-81 (talk) |
|
|
|
Wikify | ||
| 1 |
|
Gorizont 33 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Orphan |
| 6 |
|
Japan's space development (talk) |
|
Orphan | ||||
| 3 |
|
Amy Honey (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Orphan |
| 5 |
|
OPS 3762 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 1 |
|
Soyuz-B (talk) |
|
|
|
Stub | ||
| 20 |
|
HDCI (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Stub |
| 4 |
|
Kosmos 213 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 4 |
|
Kosmos 638 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 3 |
|
Kosmos 672 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub |
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eutelsat 28B may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- }}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Venesat-1 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- }}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding my DYK nomination
Hello! I am here to pester you again. This time it is relating to a DYK nomination I made. The link to the nomination page is here. The name of the article is Satish Dhawan Space Centre Third Launch Pad. It was started by me on 8 June 2013 and self nominated at 16:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC). This space-flight related has till now not been reviewed. I would be grateful to you if you could spare some of your time to review the article and make the appropriate comments/suggestions at either the nomination page or on my talk page. Once again thanks. Regards. - Jayadevp13 12:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest with you, I have absolutely no idea how to review a DYK nomination - it's not an area of the project I'm particularly active in. Somebody like Materialscientist would probably be a better person to ask. That said, I can give some general advice: The facilities section should probably be rewritten as it is little more than a quote. Most of the "See also" section is already covered by the navbox, and can probably be removed. With regards the nomination itself, I would suggest replacing "rockets" with "missions", and possibly rewording it to include a link to Satish Dhawan Space Centre - maybe something like "... that the Third Launch Pad at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre will be used to launch missions of the Indian human spaceflight programme". Sorry I can't be of more help. --W. D. Graham 12:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. This itself is more than enough. Regards. - Jayadevp13 15:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Your Bot account
Done
User:AstRoBot, Good luck :)
Mlpearc (powwow) 17:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you --W. D. Graham 17:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oceansat-1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OCM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Resurs-P No.1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding FLP
Hello WDGraham! I saw that you made changes to Satish Dhawan Space Centre and Satish Dhawan Space Centre First Launch Pad regarding the location of launches of SLV and ASLV. Are you sure about that? Please provide some sort of proof or reference. If you are 100% sure that you are right then make the same change to List of Satish Dhawan Space Centre launches. Regards. - Jayadevp13 15:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I posted an image of the old ASLV pad on the NSF forum yesterday - see this thread. It's about 5-6km south of the modern pads. --W. D. Graham 16:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let us wait for an outcome to your query. - Jayadevp13 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- The query is regarding whether there are one or two pads in that picture - either way, that picture shows a pad, or two pads, which is where all SLV and ASLV launches occurred - that's not in any doubt. The modern FLP is 6-7 km north of where that photo was taken. --W. D. Graham 16:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Let us wait for an outcome to your query. - Jayadevp13 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Soyuz failures
Hi,
Thanks for your kind work on this spaceflight page:)
I thought there was a mistake (with Proton's failure on July, 2nd, I checked the total of failures regarding successes). I didn't understand why Soyuz was marked with a failure, so I corrected it. So what does 'Soyuz from Kourou (1)' mean, as Soyuz did not had a failure this year?
Kind Regards, Thomas
- That is the number of launches from Kourou, not the number of failures. --W. D. Graham 10:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
OH, Ok, thank you for the explanation, now I understand :) (I confused with Sea Launch's failure for only one launch, without controlling with other years for instance) Sorry for my mistake :(
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Martian Gullies
An article that you have been involved in editing, Martian Gullies , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Navid (satellite) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Semnan
- Omid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Semnan
- Ōsumi (satellite) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to ISAS
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
AstRoBot
Hey, great job on the bot. For the HA references, perhaps the bot can automatically add a "date" field matching the epoch date, since the accessdate may or may not be on the same date as the TLE update. It may also be useful to provide a UTC time alongside the epoch date. Also, would it be possible to provide speed snapshots based on the TLE, as can be done at http://www.satellite-calculations.com/TLETracker/SatTracker.htm ? I love that site...now that the bot is operational, I won't have much need for it any more! Lastly, how would editors go about setting up the bot to provide info for other articles, once the trial is over? — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Done all, just setting up a userspace test run to see if they work...Not seen that site before, but it looks quite useful. I've written up some usage instructions at Template:Orbit/doc. I've started a discussion on WT:SPACEFLIGHT about expanding the trial group to get a better indication of how the bot is working (and speed up the trial process), and would welcome your input. --W. D. Graham 14:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I'm thinking, though, that it may be more useful to readers to express the speed in km/h rather than km/s. Most people will have trouble getting their minds around "per second" figures when their entire experience is in "per hour". — Huntster (t @ c) 04:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree that kph would be more useful for casual readers, km/s is the SI unit and the unit that more scientific readers would expect. I think the best solution would be to include both - and mph as well for users who prefer imperial units - which can be achieved with {{convert}}. I would suggest having the SI units first, followed by kph and then mph. How would something like this strike you? --W. D. Graham 07:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, well that works well, very nice. Even the length of the expanded "kilometers per second" plays perfectly with the parenthetical below it. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- While I agree that kph would be more useful for casual readers, km/s is the SI unit and the unit that more scientific readers would expect. I think the best solution would be to include both - and mph as well for users who prefer imperial units - which can be achieved with {{convert}}. I would suggest having the SI units first, followed by kph and then mph. How would something like this strike you? --W. D. Graham 07:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proton-M, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yaw (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Project Apollo
Edit the images in the articles on the Apollo flights 7-17 in a similar fashion as the Space Shuttle mission images. (A main image before the mission patch). 71.219.75.224 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- They will all be done eventually; it's a formatting change being rolled out across well over a thousand articles, so these things take time. --W. D. Graham 08:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
| Views/Day | Quality | Title | Content | Headings | Images | Links | Sources | Tagged with… |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 586 |
|
Deccan Plateau (talk) |
|
|
Add sources | |||
| 278 |
|
Human spaceflight (talk) |
|
Add sources | ||||
| 23 |
|
Mars 1 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Add sources | |
| 566 |
|
Planck length (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Add sources | |
| 86 |
|
Luna 1 (talk) |
|
|
Add sources | |||
| 101 |
|
Mars Express (talk) | Add sources | |||||
| 150 |
|
Sushi Girl (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Cleanup |
| 96 |
|
Miniaturized satellite (talk) |
|
|
|
Cleanup | ||
| 20 |
|
STS-101 (talk) |
|
|
Cleanup | |||
| 2 |
|
Wolfgang Fasching (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Expand |
| 169 |
|
Private spaceflight (talk) | Expand | |||||
| 185 |
|
Little Inferno (talk) |
|
Expand | ||||
| 26 |
|
Misty (satellite) (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Unencyclopaedic | |
| 858 |
|
Alexander II of Russia (talk) |
|
Unencyclopaedic | ||||
| 29 |
|
US-A (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Unencyclopaedic |
| 8,039 |
|
Standard deviation (talk) |
|
Merge | ||||
| 1,420 |
|
Micromax Mobile (talk) |
|
|
Merge | |||
| 83 |
|
Militarisation of space (talk) |
|
Merge | ||||
| 9 |
|
Military Soyuz (talk) |
|
|
|
Wikify | ||
| 66 |
|
Plesetsk Cosmodrome (talk) |
|
|
|
Wikify | ||
| 47 |
|
Defense Support Program (talk) |
|
|
Wikify | |||
| 2 |
|
Chasqui I (talk) |
|
|
|
Orphan | ||
| 266 |
|
Kirobo (talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
Orphan |
| 7 |
|
COMPASS-2 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Orphan | |
| 4 |
|
STEX (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 2 |
|
Kosmos 14 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 1 |
|
Kosmos 487 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 3 |
|
Kosmos 23 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 1 |
|
Kosmos 467 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub | |
| 2 |
|
Kosmos 6 (talk) |
|
|
|
|
Stub |
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
AstRoBot and USA-240
Hi there 
. thought you might like to know, the bot kinda mangled this page a bit... Also, why is it removing references? Is n2yo not a reliable source? (This is not my subject area, I've no idea either way!) Cheers, Nikthestunned 08:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, that looked fine when I checked it this morning - the only problem I can see is the missing reference. There's nothing wrong with n2yo - it shouldn't have removed the reference completely - but the Heavens-Above data is more up-to-date, so the bot changed the ref to that data. I didn't realise the reference was in use elsewhere in the article, or I'd have moved the definition to the first instance that wasn't to be changed. --W. D. Graham 21:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MESSENGER, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Kosmos 1667 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Bion
- Kosmos 605 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Bion
- Picard (satellite) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Dombarovsky
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
RE: Project Apollo
I would like to help out on switching mission patches with other pictures on space articles. Where can I start? NASA whiz (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a case of removing mission patches, it's just a case of standardising the boxes displayed in the top corner of the articles. As a new editor, I think a better introduction to the project for you might be to play around with writing or editing text in articles, rather than worrying about obscure technical tasks. If you decide to stick around you might want to consider joining WikiProject Spaceflight. --W. D. Graham 09:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox cargo spacecraft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| For your awesome efforts to develop (and maintain) AstRoBot so that all the Earth-orbiting satellite articles might be able to have accurate information about their decaying orbits. N2e (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
- Hear, hear! I'm tremendously pleased with how AstRoBot is operating! — Huntster (t @ c) 12:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. --W. D. Graham 19:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Einstein Observatory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TRW (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Astrobot question
Hey WD. With the LADEE mission just launched, and it staying in Geocentric orbit for the next month or so before Lunar orbit injection, might LADEE be a good test of the Astrobot automatically updating some fairly dynamic orbital elements? Perhaps it makes no sense to try that at all, technically, since the orbits are changing, or perhaps it would not be allowed by the Bot trial, but if it was, it would be a cool beta test since each of the three Earth orbits would have such dynamically changing orbital elements. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Could be an interesting test - HA currently has no data on LADEE though, but it should update soon. There are two runs scheduled before LADEE reaches the Moon (21/9 and 5/10). The question is would it be better to show the (planned) operational orbit, or the current (not mission-relevant) transfer orbit in the infobox? --W. D. Graham 11:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cool, glad you think that the Bot trial rulz would not preclude it.
- As to which orbit to show, here's my two cents on the question: 1) LADEE is is space now, and Wikipedia should simply show the current orbit now, which is Geocentric. Then, once LADEE is in Lunar orbit, it would be correct to show the Seleocentric orbital regime. 2) the orbital trajectory for this particular mission is notable and relevant. Why? Two reasons, one technical and one economic. LADEE's Geocentric orbit is rather dynamically changing on each of its three increasingly-larger-loop phasing orbits before trans-Lunar injection; Wikipedia could possibly show that—depending on what Astrobot parms and frequency are possible and advisiable—and this approach is interesting to our worldwide readership. Secondly, at an important economic level, it is precisely because of this novel trajectory approach that LADEE can get such a low-cost mission on a low-cost bus to the Moon. Enjoy, N2e (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
infobox at Vostok 6
Something seems to have gone wrong with the infobox replacement at this article. I glanced at it but didn't see the problem. Cheers - BPMullins | Talk 22:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Bpmullins: Looks like a poorly-formatted reference got truncated by the conversion tool. Fixed. --W. D. Graham 23:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 17:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm Omkar1234. Your recent edit to the page Mars Climate Orbiter appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Omkar1234 Message me!!! 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Talkback by Omkar1234
Message added 15:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Omkar1234 Message me!!! 15:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
BAGBot: Your bot request AstRoBot
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AstRoBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Astrobot learning
Hey WD. Congratulations on the approval for Astrobot to begin operating.
I'd like to add Astrobot auto updates to one article in order to learn how to do it, as we all begin to expand the coverage of the now approved bot. As a first article, I was thinking of Ratsat, which is one of the Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth, launched in 2008, and hasn't had an update to orbital elements in six years, since Sep 2008. I also selected that one simply because you had already updated it to the new Spaceflight infobox, which as I read the Astrobot instructions, is the approach that will make use of Astrobot on a specific LEO-sat article most straightforward.
Unfortunately, I'm finding I don't quite know where to start. The bot instructions say:
- 1. Ensure the orbit_epoch field in the infobox is set
- 2. Ensure the SATCAT field in the infobox is set correctly
- 3. Add auto=all, auto=general or auto=orbit or auto=none to the infobox
I think I'm good on no. 3, but don't quite know what would make the second item be "set correctly", and I'm also unclear if being "set" as a criteria for no. 1 means only that something be in the orbit_epoch field, or something more specific than that. If I get past those two questions, I think I'm good to go on a first try to add Astrobot to updating one more article before your fortnightly update tomorrow.
Feel free to answer here, or update/clarify the instructions, or whatever way you think is best to help both you and this Astrobot-newbie editor (me) move forward on a limited, single-article beta test. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- In theory the epoch field just needs to be present, the requirement for an initial value is just something I put in to encourage good practise. The SATCAT field just needs to be set to the correct value for that satellite, so in RatSat's case that is 33393. The presence of a reference, for example, won't affect the bot, but if somebody put two SATCATs in the same field, or put in one of the NSSDC's made-up identifiers, it could cause problems. --W. D. Graham 14:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm going to give it a go. Feel free to review, and watch the bot run results, revert/mod as necessary. N2e (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
- Worked fairly well, the bot had a small problem with one of the old references being left in place so I've fixed it and updated the documentation accordingly. Other than that it went very well. --W. D. Graham 09:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- GREAT!. That's what beta tests are all about. And as mentioned, this one was needed to get me up the learning curve too.
- I see that the mass simulator on that flight has decayed very little in five years, which makes sense with it's higher orbit. However, it does point out a wonderful side benefit of Astrobot: regular updates of OE by Astrobot on articles which are of interest to various editors will make the orbital decay, whether fast or slow, much more visible to more people. Very cool. I'm looking forward to seeing what emerges from that broader and more easily visible knowledge among more people. N2e (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm currently looking into the possibility of using the bot to update a table of orbit elements over time. --W. D. Graham 12:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good. If you get that to a state where you want any beta testing, let me know. N2e (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm currently looking into the possibility of using the bot to update a table of orbit elements over time. --W. D. Graham 12:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Worked fairly well, the bot had a small problem with one of the old references being left in place so I've fixed it and updated the documentation accordingly. Other than that it went very well. --W. D. Graham 09:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm going to give it a go. Feel free to review, and watch the bot run results, revert/mod as necessary. N2e (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Tweak needed?
Hey WD, if you'll check this diff, and compare the bot's change to inclination compared to the H-A record, you'll see a fairly significant difference. Any idea how this could have occurred?
Also, I'm curious how you've chosen how many significant figures are used for each field. I've tended to use six sigfigs for everything except distances (as you'll notice in the version before the bot's), but it looks like you are going strictly with two decimals places except for eccentricity and the apsides? Just wondering about the process. Cheers! — Huntster (t @ c) 12:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Huntster: The HA data has been updated since the bot ran, so I'm assuming there was something off (on the HA-end) in the elset the bot used, however I will check before the next run in case it has dropped a zero. With regards precision, most sites only go to 1 or 2dp on everything except eccentricity (some have even less precision for apses). WP:MOSNUM warns against excessive precision, so 2dp seemed a good choice to me. --W. D. Graham 12:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Huntster: - found and fixed a minor error in the rounding script which seems to be dropping a zero, should work now. --W. D. Graham 16:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Great to hear, thanks WD. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
LADEE and Astrobot; LADEE and Heavens Above
Hey WD. With the LADEE mission just launched, and it staying in Geocentric orbit for the next month or so before Lunar orbit injection, might LADEE be a good test of the Astrobot automatically updating some fairly dynamic orbital elements? Perhaps it makes no sense to try that at all, technically, since the orbits are changing, or perhaps it would not be allowed by the Bot trial, but if it was, it would be a cool beta test since each of the three Earth orbits would have such dynamically changing orbital elements. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Could be an interesting test - HA currently has no data on LADEE though, but it should update soon. There are two runs scheduled before LADEE reaches the Moon (21/9 and 5/10). The question is would it be better to show the (planned) operational orbit, or the current (not mission-relevant) transfer orbit in the infobox? --W. D. Graham 11:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cool, glad you think that the Bot trial rulz would not preclude it.
- As to which orbit to show, here's my two cents on the question: 1) LADEE is is space now, and Wikipedia should simply show the current orbit now, which is Geocentric. Then, once LADEE is in Lunar orbit, it would be correct to show the Seleocentric orbital regime. 2) the orbital trajectory for this particular mission is notable and relevant. Why? Two reasons, one technical and one economic. LADEE's Geocentric orbit is rather dynamically changing on each of its three increasingly-larger-loop phasing orbits before trans-Lunar injection; Wikipedia could possibly show that—depending on what Astrobot parms and frequency are possible and advisiable—and this approach is interesting to our worldwide readership. Secondly, at an important economic level, it is precisely because of this novel trajectory approach that LADEE can get such a low-cost mission on a low-cost bus to the Moon. Enjoy, N2e (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, with the Astrobot run completed earlier today, I'd like to think this through again. Doesn't look like the LADEE article was set up to auto update for LADEE in Geocentric orbit, which is fine. That's my starting point.
Thought I might just manually update the article with LADEEs OEs today...
So I just went over to the Heaven's Above database and tried a manual search for LADEE. I came up blank; but then that is the very first time I've ever gone to that web site. I did a search under LADEE and also for Lunar; no dice. Do you happen to know a way to find LADEE there on HA that newbie me does not? Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be on H-A yet...perhaps there is a lag for some reason? It would normally be at http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=39246. It is on N2YO at http://n2yo.com/satellite/?s=39246, but the two sites typically give very different figures for satellites, which is something I've always been curious about. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- @N2e: I didn't enable the bot on LADEE because I noticed that HA didn't have a page for it. This is where it should be, I've noticed a few recent spacecraft missing from HA, usually ones which are unlikely to be of interest to observers (eg. too high, docking with the ISS too quickly, etc). Unfortunately AstRoBot cannot currently process N2YO data since the site doesn't give the epoch for its data. When I get around to it I might try programming it to extract one from the TLEs on that site, as a backup if it can't find anything on HA. --W. D. Graham 12:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. Great answers all around! I now understand why I could not find LADEE on HA; and I like your idea WD about possibly looking into an alternate execution path for the software for a very small set of sats which might be of high short-term interest but be on trajectories (or for other reasons...) not picked up by HA. Keep up the good work! N2e (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The trajectory folks out at NASA Ames made their second perigee burn on LADEE yesterday morning (Saturday morning, US Pacific Time)–so LADEE has now begun their third geo-loop phasing orbit on the way to the Moon. One more perigee to go before the transition to a trajectory that will get it to LOI.
So while it would have been really cool to test the bot on a Lunar transit/phasing orbit spacecraft, the OEs (if based on LADEE's loop no. 2 orbit) would likely have been wrong shortly after we updated it from H-A onto Wikipedia. We'll just have to wait for another opportunity on some other mission in the future. Rome wasn't built in a day. I suspect these capabilities will only get stronger and better in the future, and we might be able to use more-frequently updated elsets on the very few spacecraft articles where active orbit transitions are occurring. N2e (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've just made the first successful test run using N2YO data as a fallback, so that should now work. Another bonus is that the bot can now read TLEs rather than having to rely on the data put in front of it by the website, so in time other data sources could potentially be added. For the record, N2YOs elset for LADEE is dated 14 September, so it was already out of date before the latest burn. --W. D. Graham 08:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Super. Will be good to see how the bot runs on the next run where an article is set to update and H_A comes up empty. As for LADEE, yes, the 14 Sep epoch would indicate that the elset was likely just for the first loop. N2e (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Problem with the Launching Template
Hi WDGraham, there seems to be something wrong with the source code of the Launching Template - see my latest edit of the Template:Launching/Proton (ILS): "Launch is scheduled for 29 September 2013 at 21:38 UTC (30 October, 03:38 Almaty Time)."
Can you please check where's the problem? Thanks! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Can't find the bug; I've put a workaround in place for now. At some point the whole template needs to be rewritten using Lua. --W. D. Graham 07:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013 in spaceflight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CASIC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Hi, I am Benison, the nominator of Voyager 1 as a GA candidate. I have done the changes in your review. Please go through it once again and pass it. Thanks in advance. Regards...Happy editing!!! Benison talk with me 12:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Benison. I've had another look at the article, and I believe that some of the concerns I raised in Talk:Voyager 1/GA2 still need to be addressed. Please can you clarify what changes have been made to the article as a result of the specific comments which I made, and consider further changes to bring the article up to GA standards. --W. D. Graham 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi,
I have done the suggestions made by you. Please go through the article once again. Benison talk with me 11:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- The article has improved significantly, however there are still points which have not been addressed. In order for the article to be promoted, you need to address all of the issues which I raised on Talk:Voyager 1/GA2, either by editing the article or if you feel they should not be changed, by convincing me of this. --W. D. Graham 00:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Cat del
OK, Category:Spaceflight infobox standardisation - phase 2 should depopulate itself automatically over a day or so. But I would like you to wait until that has happened before you nominate it for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the message on my talk page. Category:Spaceflight infobox standardisation - phase 2 is empty, looks like the database is just being a bit slow to update. It was populated by a parameter in {{Infobox spaceflight}} which has now been removed, this must not have propagated to all articles yet. Can you please keep an eye on it and delete when appropriate. --W. D. Graham 11:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please keep talk threads in one place. If you want a quick response, use a {{talkback}} tag. From where I sit, at this moment it contains 1646 pages. Will you please keep an eye on it and tag it when it becomes empty. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Irrational and illogical discussions
Just to inform you, I will no longer discuss and waste any more time with an editor that is extremely bias to a logical way of editing as it is obvious that this editor in question derives their statements from either a highly emotive, geographical, political or religious view. These editors create a bully mentality and culture on Wikipedia that drives away new editors who don't submit to the style of editing that longer serving editors have established. As long as this kind of culture continues then Wikipedia will eventually lose support and fade into obscurity. PS, Wikipedia has guidelines for newbie editors which should not be used as some sort of state enforced law. The only time a editor should be banned from editing are for obvious cases of vandalism where the actions either remove of deface content without reason.Helmboy (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, believe what you like but I think your conduct in this issue has been appalling. First of all you ignore WP:BRD and restore an edit which had been removed with good reasons. Then when the discussion doesn't go your way you just go back to making the same edits. WP:IAR doesn't justify disruptive editing. I've been as patient with you as I can but you need to learn how to discuss controversial edits and form and accept consensus or you are going to get blocked. I've tried to assume good faith on your part - sending you a general notice about how to handle editing disputes because it is quite possible that you have not encountered one before. You removed that notice, claiming it was an "attack" (the same edit summary you used when removing the warning template I posted after you went back to making disputed changes without consensus) - if you want to see what a personal attack looks like, I'd suggest you read what you just posted here. Now there are procedures to follow with editors who make personal attacks, but I'm not going to take this any further. If you don't want to discuss this matter then fine, but if you go back to changing date formats without discussion, then that's still disruptive editing and I think combined with the message you've just posted here you're going to be looking at a lot of scrutiny, if not a block, should you choose to continue this disruption. --W. D. Graham 22:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Astrobot additions for the Next update
WD, per your request on User:AstRoBot, I'll just add a few bullets here over the next couple of weeks as I add a few more pages to Astrobot's ministrations.
- Vanguard 1 — N2e (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Astra 1A — N2e (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Astra 1B, Astra 1C, Astra 1D, Astra 1E, Astra 1KR, Astra 1M, Astra 1N, Astra 2A, Astra 2C, Astra 2D, Astra 2F, Astra 3A, and , Astra 3A. — N2e (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I could not find Astra 2B nor Astra 5A in Heavens-Above. 2E has not launched yet, due to the recent Proton rocket failure. N2e (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Found them both from their SATCAT numbers. 5A was launched under a different name and HA is still calling it by that, and they've got 2A's name wrong. --W. D. Graham 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. And it looks like you updated both of them for auto updates. I will look forward to seeing the results after AstRoBot goes through a bigger list of pages next weekend. N2e (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest not adding too many more pages for the next run - best to ease into it with a few per update. The Astras are fine, and maybe add one or two others, but I'd like to keep it below 50. --W. D. Graham 21:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. I had the same thought that you would want to crank it up at a measured pace, to allow you to monitor how the bot handles a wider variety of permutations. Did you mean limit it to 50 in the next update? ...and then +n more for each future update? N2e (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say have a total of 50 articles for the next run, then look to add 25 articles each for the next two after that. After the 2 November run I'll review how well the bot (and my computer) is handling the load and if it's going well we can take away the limits. --W. D. Graham 07:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Great. Sounds like a good plan. I'll keep my additions well under the total scale of what you are aiming for here, so that you and others can add most of those target new articles yourself. N2e (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say have a total of 50 articles for the next run, then look to add 25 articles each for the next two after that. After the 2 November run I'll review how well the bot (and my computer) is handling the load and if it's going well we can take away the limits. --W. D. Graham 07:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. I had the same thought that you would want to crank it up at a measured pace, to allow you to monitor how the bot handles a wider variety of permutations. Did you mean limit it to 50 in the next update? ...and then +n more for each future update? N2e (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'd suggest not adding too many more pages for the next run - best to ease into it with a few per update. The Astras are fine, and maybe add one or two others, but I'd like to keep it below 50. --W. D. Graham 21:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cool. And it looks like you updated both of them for auto updates. I will look forward to seeing the results after AstRoBot goes through a bigger list of pages next weekend. N2e (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Found them both from their SATCAT numbers. 5A was launched under a different name and HA is still calling it by that, and they've got 2A's name wrong. --W. D. Graham 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, I could not find Astra 2B nor Astra 5A in Heavens-Above. 2E has not launched yet, due to the recent Proton rocket failure. N2e (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. Took three attempts though - turns out you do have to put something in the epoch field, even if it's just "unknown". --W. D. Graham 08:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Great work! I've looked through a couple of them, and will review the rest later today. N2e (talk) 11:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Astrobot additions for the late October update
WD, per your request on User:AstRoBot, I'll add a few bullets here over the next couple of weeks as I add a few more pages to Astrobot's ministrations, mindful of keeping the number of new adds to about 5 or so, and will of course put 'unknown' in for epoch if I don't have one, rather than leaving it blank.
- I'd like to add Astra 2E, now that it has launched, but could not locate a SATCAT on Heavens-Above.
- Although the following are not new additions, I'm going to keep an eye on Astra 1A, Astra 1B, Astra 1C, and Astra 2D. In those cases I have manually updated the orbital regime, after today's AstRoBot run, and I want to see how Astrobot interacts with that in the next automatic update.
- While the four examples above are Supersynchronous (1A and 1B) and Geosynchronous (1C and 2D), rather than Geostationary orbit regimes, I'd like to find two examples of Geo-belt subsynchronous satellites, in order to help beta test how Astrobot handles all three classes of comm sat orbital regimes. If I find them, I'll add them here so you can be aware. If you know of any, I'd be happy if you sent a pointer my way. In the meantime, keep up the good work with Astrobot! I think it is a great addition. N2e (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- The bot ignores the regime - it would be too complex to set it up to calculate what sort of orbit a particular spacecraft is in - and changes of orbit regime, other than newly-launched satellites finalising their orbits and GSO satellites being retired, are so rare it isn't worth implementing. If I get the chance I might look into some kind of alert system for orbits which are obviously incorrect, flagging them for manual review. If you wanted to start from scratch, USA-246 would probably be a good subsynch candidate - it is using ion propulsion to slowly raise itself to GEO. Not sure what elsets are available on it though. Astra 2E is subsynch at the moment, but probably won't be by the next update - I've added its SATCAT from N2YO and enabled updates. --W. D. Graham 17:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eutelsat 16B may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | names_list = Hot Bird 4 (1998-06)<br/>Atlantic Bird 4 (2006-09)<br/>Eurobird 16 (2009-2012<br/>Eutelsat 16B (2012—)<br/><br/>Leased capacity:<br/>Nilesat 103 (2006-09)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar Orbiter 4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{Lunar Orbiter program}}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Hi, Can you please go through the article Voyager 1 once more... I have made the necessary changes. Benison talk with me 07:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, you haven't. For one thing the spurious pop culture references, which I raised in section 3B of the review, are still present. I didn't look much deeper but I could clearly see some other issues still there as well. Please go though the whole list (excluding section 1b, which I'll update once the other issues have been resolved), and check that you have addressed the concerns. --W. D. Graham 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Here are the changes made by me in Voyager 1 for GA review......
1a. I have done the changes to most paragraphs but kept some to make it clearer.
1b. Waiting for your assessment.
2b. I have deleted the popular section which according to you is inappropriate.
3a. The article indeed give all the details of the craft's engineering. please go through the article once more.
3b. The popular culture section is deleted.
4. Removed the word famous.
6a. All the images as of 10th Oct have the details like source, author, etc.
6b. Done it!!
Thanks and regards, Benison talk with me
- I've updated the page, still needs work. --W. D. Graham 08:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Except 1(a) and 3(a), I have done the changes. Former changes could't be done bcoz I haven't understood them. Please specify them more. Thanks..Regards... Benison talk with me 13:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Falcon 9
While the Falcon 9 article could go any of several ways (a high-level model class article, on all F9 vehicles, or a article on the F9 in general PLUS the specific F9 v1.0 model, etc.), some edits got made today that are presuming a particular outcome. Therefore, to get the issue quickly resolved, I proposed a move on the Talk page. I don't really care which way it goes, but do hope you and other editors will weigh in. N2e (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick input on that question the other day. Definitely helped resolve the issue expeditiously. N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
ITN for Scott Carpenter
| On 11 October 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Scott Carpenter, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Double redirects for Mangalyaan
Hi, after Mangalyaan was moved to Mars Orbiter Mission, there were a few double redirects which I've fixed. Tell me if it's fine now as I'm not so confident in fixing this, especially if I've overlooked anything. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Odd, the bot usually takes care of them within an hour or so of the move, so I didn't even check...looks fine now though, thanks for sorting it out. --W. D. Graham 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- To get a list of redirects, go to what links Here and click hide links and hide transclusions (although apart from templates, pages are rarely transcluded). If anything redirects to a redirect, it's usually broken. I'm not sure how often the bot runs - it usually fixes article-space redirects within an hour or so, and talk pages within a few days. --W. D. Graham 15:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Review
Hi, I am waiting for your review... Please read the section GA review in your talk page...Benison talk with me 16:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of that; I am currently assessing what still needs to be changed. Constantly reminding me won't make it happen any faster. --W. D. Graham 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference ref name="GSP" was invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPS_IIR-1&diff=prev&oldid=557706522
Please add thanks --Frze > talk 14:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Hi, Can you please go through the article Voyager 1 once more... I have made the necessary changes. Benison talk with me 07:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, you haven't. For one thing the spurious pop culture references, which I raised in section 3B of the review, are still present. I didn't look much deeper but I could clearly see some other issues still there as well. Please go though the whole list (excluding section 1b, which I'll update once the other issues have been resolved), and check that you have addressed the concerns. --W. D. Graham 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Here are the changes made by me in Voyager 1 for GA review......
1a. I have done the changes to most paragraphs but kept some to make it clearer.
1b. Waiting for your assessment.
2b. I have deleted the popular section which according to you is inappropriate.
3a. The article indeed give all the details of the craft's engineering. please go through the article once more.
3b. The popular culture section is deleted.
4. Removed the word famous.
6a. All the images as of 10th Oct have the details like source, author, etc.
6b. Done it!!
Thanks and regards, Benison talk with me
- I've updated the page, still needs work. --W. D. Graham 08:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Except 1(a) and 3(a), I have done the changes. Former changes could't be done bcoz I haven't understood them. Please specify them more. Thanks..Regards... Benison talk with me 13:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Falcon 9
While the Falcon 9 article could go any of several ways (a high-level model class article, on all F9 vehicles, or a article on the F9 in general PLUS the specific F9 v1.0 model, etc.), some edits got made today that are presuming a particular outcome. Therefore, to get the issue quickly resolved, I proposed a move on the Talk page. I don't really care which way it goes, but do hope you and other editors will weigh in. N2e (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick input on that question the other day. Definitely helped resolve the issue expeditiously. N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
ITN for Scott Carpenter
| On 11 October 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Scott Carpenter, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Double redirects for Mangalyaan
Hi, after Mangalyaan was moved to Mars Orbiter Mission, there were a few double redirects which I've fixed. Tell me if it's fine now as I'm not so confident in fixing this, especially if I've overlooked anything. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Odd, the bot usually takes care of them within an hour or so of the move, so I didn't even check...looks fine now though, thanks for sorting it out. --W. D. Graham 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- To get a list of redirects, go to what links Here and click hide links and hide transclusions (although apart from templates, pages are rarely transcluded). If anything redirects to a redirect, it's usually broken. I'm not sure how often the bot runs - it usually fixes article-space redirects within an hour or so, and talk pages within a few days. --W. D. Graham 15:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Review
Hi, I am waiting for your review... Please read the section GA review in your talk page...Benison talk with me 16:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of that; I am currently assessing what still needs to be changed. Constantly reminding me won't make it happen any faster. --W. D. Graham 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference ref name="GSP" was invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPS_IIR-1&diff=prev&oldid=557706522
Please add thanks --Frze > talk 14:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'll use your Soyuz rocket image for my Kerbal tutorial here. Thanks for the great work! 213.87.123.220 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
ITN for Scott Carpenter
| On 11 October 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Scott Carpenter, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Double redirects for Mangalyaan
Hi, after Mangalyaan was moved to Mars Orbiter Mission, there were a few double redirects which I've fixed. Tell me if it's fine now as I'm not so confident in fixing this, especially if I've overlooked anything. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Odd, the bot usually takes care of them within an hour or so of the move, so I didn't even check...looks fine now though, thanks for sorting it out. --W. D. Graham 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- To get a list of redirects, go to what links Here and click hide links and hide transclusions (although apart from templates, pages are rarely transcluded). If anything redirects to a redirect, it's usually broken. I'm not sure how often the bot runs - it usually fixes article-space redirects within an hour or so, and talk pages within a few days. --W. D. Graham 15:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Hi, Can you please go through the article Voyager 1 once more... I have made the necessary changes. Benison talk with me 07:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, you haven't. For one thing the spurious pop culture references, which I raised in section 3B of the review, are still present. I didn't look much deeper but I could clearly see some other issues still there as well. Please go though the whole list (excluding section 1b, which I'll update once the other issues have been resolved), and check that you have addressed the concerns. --W. D. Graham 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Here are the changes made by me in Voyager 1 for GA review......
1a. I have done the changes to most paragraphs but kept some to make it clearer.
1b. Waiting for your assessment.
2b. I have deleted the popular section which according to you is inappropriate.
3a. The article indeed give all the details of the craft's engineering. please go through the article once more.
3b. The popular culture section is deleted.
4. Removed the word famous.
6a. All the images as of 10th Oct have the details like source, author, etc.
6b. Done it!!
Thanks and regards, Benison talk with me
- I've updated the page, still needs work. --W. D. Graham 08:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Except 1(a) and 3(a), I have done the changes. Former changes could't be done bcoz I haven't understood them. Please specify them more. Thanks..Regards... Benison talk with me 13:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Falcon 9
While the Falcon 9 article could go any of several ways (a high-level model class article, on all F9 vehicles, or a article on the F9 in general PLUS the specific F9 v1.0 model, etc.), some edits got made today that are presuming a particular outcome. Therefore, to get the issue quickly resolved, I proposed a move on the Talk page. I don't really care which way it goes, but do hope you and other editors will weigh in. N2e (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick input on that question the other day. Definitely helped resolve the issue expeditiously. N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference ref name="GSP" was invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPS_IIR-1&diff=prev&oldid=557706522
Please add thanks --Frze > talk 14:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'll use your Soyuz rocket image for my Kerbal tutorial here. Thanks for the great work! 213.87.123.220 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eutelsat 16B may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | names_list = Hot Bird 4 (1998-06)<br/>Atlantic Bird 4 (2006-09)<br/>Eurobird 16 (2009-2012<br/>Eutelsat 16B (2012—)<br/><br/>Leased capacity:<br/>Nilesat 103 (2006-09)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar Orbiter 4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{Lunar Orbiter program}}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Horizons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | mission_duration = Primary mission: 9.5 years<br/><small>({{For year month day| year=2006| month=01| day=19}} elapsed</small>
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Request comment on an article you have previously engaged with on the Talk page
Following the completion of a previous BRD on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) (link to previous discussion here), where User:Skyring (aka "Pete") was unable to gain a consensus on changing the lede sentence descriptive noun in the Lynx (spacecraft) article from "spaceplane" to "concept" (originally changed by Skyring/Pete on 12 Oct), Skyring/Pete has again made a Bold edit and changed the descriptive noun in the lede sentence, this time from "spaceplane" to "program."
I have opened a WP:BRD discussion on this second change. Would appreciate it if you would consider weighing in. The Link to the BRD discussion is here. Thanks for your consideration. N2e (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
(full disclosure: I'm placing this notice on each user's Talk page who has been active on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) in the past six months)
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Gorizont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to RSCC
- Seasat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lockheed
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Review
Hi, I am waiting for your review... Please read the section GA review in your talk page...Benison talk with me 16:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of that; I am currently assessing what still needs to be changed. Constantly reminding me won't make it happen any faster. --W. D. Graham 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it really such a long process?? I am waiting for your next review. Benison talk with me 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eutelsat 16B may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | names_list = Hot Bird 4 (1998-06)<br/>Atlantic Bird 4 (2006-09)<br/>Eurobird 16 (2009-2012<br/>Eutelsat 16B (2012—)<br/><br/>Leased capacity:<br/>Nilesat 103 (2006-09)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar Orbiter 4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{Lunar Orbiter program}}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Horizons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | mission_duration = Primary mission: 9.5 years<br/><small>({{For year month day| year=2006| month=01| day=19}} elapsed</small>
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Hi, Can you please go through the article Voyager 1 once more... I have made the necessary changes. Benison talk with me 07:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, you haven't. For one thing the spurious pop culture references, which I raised in section 3B of the review, are still present. I didn't look much deeper but I could clearly see some other issues still there as well. Please go though the whole list (excluding section 1b, which I'll update once the other issues have been resolved), and check that you have addressed the concerns. --W. D. Graham 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Here are the changes made by me in Voyager 1 for GA review......
1a. I have done the changes to most paragraphs but kept some to make it clearer.
1b. Waiting for your assessment.
2b. I have deleted the popular section which according to you is inappropriate.
3a. The article indeed give all the details of the craft's engineering. please go through the article once more.
3b. The popular culture section is deleted.
4. Removed the word famous.
6a. All the images as of 10th Oct have the details like source, author, etc.
6b. Done it!!
Thanks and regards, Benison talk with me
- I've updated the page, still needs work. --W. D. Graham 08:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Except 1(a) and 3(a), I have done the changes. Former changes could't be done bcoz I haven't understood them. Please specify them more. Thanks..Regards... Benison talk with me 13:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Falcon 9
While the Falcon 9 article could go any of several ways (a high-level model class article, on all F9 vehicles, or a article on the F9 in general PLUS the specific F9 v1.0 model, etc.), some edits got made today that are presuming a particular outcome. Therefore, to get the issue quickly resolved, I proposed a move on the Talk page. I don't really care which way it goes, but do hope you and other editors will weigh in. N2e (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick input on that question the other day. Definitely helped resolve the issue expeditiously. N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
ITN for Scott Carpenter
| On 11 October 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Scott Carpenter, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Double redirects for Mangalyaan
Hi, after Mangalyaan was moved to Mars Orbiter Mission, there were a few double redirects which I've fixed. Tell me if it's fine now as I'm not so confident in fixing this, especially if I've overlooked anything. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Odd, the bot usually takes care of them within an hour or so of the move, so I didn't even check...looks fine now though, thanks for sorting it out. --W. D. Graham 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- To get a list of redirects, go to what links Here and click hide links and hide transclusions (although apart from templates, pages are rarely transcluded). If anything redirects to a redirect, it's usually broken. I'm not sure how often the bot runs - it usually fixes article-space redirects within an hour or so, and talk pages within a few days. --W. D. Graham 15:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Review
Hi, I am waiting for your review... Please read the section GA review in your talk page...Benison talk with me 16:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of that; I am currently assessing what still needs to be changed. Constantly reminding me won't make it happen any faster. --W. D. Graham 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it really such a long process?? I am waiting for your next review. Benison talk with me 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference ref name="GSP" was invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPS_IIR-1&diff=prev&oldid=557706522
Please add thanks --Frze > talk 14:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'll use your Soyuz rocket image for my Kerbal tutorial here. Thanks for the great work! 213.87.123.220 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Request comment on an article you have previously engaged with on the Talk page
Following the completion of a previous BRD on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) (link to previous discussion here), where User:Skyring (aka "Pete") was unable to gain a consensus on changing the lede sentence descriptive noun in the Lynx (spacecraft) article from "spaceplane" to "concept" (originally changed by Skyring/Pete on 12 Oct), Skyring/Pete has again made a Bold edit and changed the descriptive noun in the lede sentence, this time from "spaceplane" to "program."
I have opened a WP:BRD discussion on this second change. Would appreciate it if you would consider weighing in. The Link to the BRD discussion is here. Thanks for your consideration. N2e (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
(full disclosure: I'm placing this notice on each user's Talk page who has been active on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) in the past six months)
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Gorizont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to RSCC
- Seasat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lockheed
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:MarsGeo-Phobos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mars 1M No.2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flyby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Lynx spacecraft
Thank you very much WD for your helpful involvement in the recent disruption over at Lynx (spacecraft). I have just closed the third of three BRDs on that Talk page (the more complicated one, in which a number of primary sources had been deleted). On each one of those three BRDs, no consensus emerged to support the original edits. Your part in the wikidiscussion is very much appreciated.
Since the comments on the use of primary sources were spread all over that Talk page, I have endeavored to summarize the consensus that emerged in a section on that Talk page: Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#Use_of_Primary_sources. If you might be willing to review that summary, and comment on whether it got the consensus right, I would very much appreciate it. I will of course quite look forward to fixing it if I got anything wrong. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at this tomorrow. --W. D. Graham 22:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
ITN for Scott Carpenter
| On 11 October 2013, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Scott Carpenter, which you recently nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. |
--SpencerT♦C 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Double redirects for Mangalyaan
Hi, after Mangalyaan was moved to Mars Orbiter Mission, there were a few double redirects which I've fixed. Tell me if it's fine now as I'm not so confident in fixing this, especially if I've overlooked anything. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Odd, the bot usually takes care of them within an hour or so of the move, so I didn't even check...looks fine now though, thanks for sorting it out. --W. D. Graham 14:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- To get a list of redirects, go to what links Here and click hide links and hide transclusions (although apart from templates, pages are rarely transcluded). If anything redirects to a redirect, it's usually broken. I'm not sure how often the bot runs - it usually fixes article-space redirects within an hour or so, and talk pages within a few days. --W. D. Graham 15:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've read about it but is the bot regular...I mean, can we always ignore this and let it do it? Is there any way to find double redirects which have not been found by the bot? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Hi, Can you please go through the article Voyager 1 once more... I have made the necessary changes. Benison talk with me 07:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, you haven't. For one thing the spurious pop culture references, which I raised in section 3B of the review, are still present. I didn't look much deeper but I could clearly see some other issues still there as well. Please go though the whole list (excluding section 1b, which I'll update once the other issues have been resolved), and check that you have addressed the concerns. --W. D. Graham 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Here are the changes made by me in Voyager 1 for GA review......
1a. I have done the changes to most paragraphs but kept some to make it clearer.
1b. Waiting for your assessment.
2b. I have deleted the popular section which according to you is inappropriate.
3a. The article indeed give all the details of the craft's engineering. please go through the article once more.
3b. The popular culture section is deleted.
4. Removed the word famous.
6a. All the images as of 10th Oct have the details like source, author, etc.
6b. Done it!!
Thanks and regards, Benison talk with me
- I've updated the page, still needs work. --W. D. Graham 08:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Except 1(a) and 3(a), I have done the changes. Former changes could't be done bcoz I haven't understood them. Please specify them more. Thanks..Regards... Benison talk with me 13:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Falcon 9
While the Falcon 9 article could go any of several ways (a high-level model class article, on all F9 vehicles, or a article on the F9 in general PLUS the specific F9 v1.0 model, etc.), some edits got made today that are presuming a particular outcome. Therefore, to get the issue quickly resolved, I proposed a move on the Talk page. I don't really care which way it goes, but do hope you and other editors will weigh in. N2e (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick input on that question the other day. Definitely helped resolve the issue expeditiously. N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: The named reference ref name="GSP" was invoked but never defined >>> see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPS_IIR-1&diff=prev&oldid=557706522
Please add thanks --Frze > talk 14:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I'll use your Soyuz rocket image for my Kerbal tutorial here. Thanks for the great work! 213.87.123.220 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eutelsat 16B may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | names_list = Hot Bird 4 (1998-06)<br/>Atlantic Bird 4 (2006-09)<br/>Eurobird 16 (2009-2012<br/>Eutelsat 16B (2012—)<br/><br/>Leased capacity:<br/>Nilesat 103 (2006-09)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lunar Orbiter 4 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{Lunar Orbiter program}}}
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to New Horizons may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- | mission_duration = Primary mission: 9.5 years<br/><small>({{For year month day| year=2006| month=01| day=19}} elapsed</small>
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Request comment on an article you have previously engaged with on the Talk page
Following the completion of a previous BRD on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) (link to previous discussion here), where User:Skyring (aka "Pete") was unable to gain a consensus on changing the lede sentence descriptive noun in the Lynx (spacecraft) article from "spaceplane" to "concept" (originally changed by Skyring/Pete on 12 Oct), Skyring/Pete has again made a Bold edit and changed the descriptive noun in the lede sentence, this time from "spaceplane" to "program."
I have opened a WP:BRD discussion on this second change. Would appreciate it if you would consider weighing in. The Link to the BRD discussion is here. Thanks for your consideration. N2e (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
(full disclosure: I'm placing this notice on each user's Talk page who has been active on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) in the past six months)
Disambiguation link notification for October 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Gorizont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to RSCC
- Seasat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Lockheed
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Review
Hi, I am waiting for your review... Please read the section GA review in your talk page...Benison talk with me 16:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am aware of that; I am currently assessing what still needs to be changed. Constantly reminding me won't make it happen any faster. --W. D. Graham 17:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it really such a long process?? I am waiting for your next review. Benison talk with me 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:MarsGeo-Phobos has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mars 1M No.2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flyby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Lynx spacecraft
Thank you very much WD for your helpful involvement in the recent disruption over at Lynx (spacecraft). I have just closed the third of three BRDs on that Talk page (the more complicated one, in which a number of primary sources had been deleted). On each one of those three BRDs, no consensus emerged to support the original edits. Your part in the wikidiscussion is very much appreciated.
Since the comments on the use of primary sources were spread all over that Talk page, I have endeavored to summarize the consensus that emerged in a section on that Talk page: Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#Use_of_Primary_sources. If you might be willing to review that summary, and comment on whether it got the consensus right, I would very much appreciate it. I will of course quite look forward to fixing it if I got anything wrong. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at this tomorrow. --W. D. Graham 22:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding list of SDSC launches
Hello! I would like to know your view on my latest edit to the page List of SDSC launches. Regards. - Jayadevp13 17:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Ignore my earlier message and take a look at the latest revision of List of SDSC launches and please help in adding more info (like location, facilities etc.) to the article Satish Dhawan Space Centre SLV Launch Pad. - Jayadevp13 15:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- The SLV and ASLV used different pads. --W. D. Graham 15:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Take a look at these links. - Link 1 and Link 2. They will be added as references soon. - Jayadevp13 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Astronautix can be horribly unreliable in places, I usually only use it if I have something else to back it up. The other link won't load. --W. D. Graham 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Try a different browser. It loads in Firefox when I am logged into my google account. If that doesn't work too then I have uploaded a screenshot of how the page looks like (Link) - Jayadevp13 17:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Did I leave you speechless or what? :-P - Jayadevp13 12:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, and I find your attitude towards me waiting a few days before replying to be at best unhelpful. I just saw you were persuing the matter elsewhere so decided to allow that time to develop. Without seeing the book's sources I can't really comment on its veracity, however I do not agree with its assessment. --W. D. Graham 13:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Come on man, I was just joking. Don't take it seriously. - Jayadevp13 13:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Should there be links to INSAT-4B and INSAT-4C in the template Template:INSAT Satellites since one of the page doesn't exist and the other one is a redirect to a page which doesn't tell anything about it? - Jayadevp13 01:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Easily solved... --W. D. Graham 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you- I was actually thinking that shouldn't Template:GSAT Satellites be merged into Template:INSAT Satellites since GSAT is also a part of INSAT (most probably). Moreover I was thinking if it is really necessary to keep the two templates since Template:Indian space programme does the job neatly. - Jayadevp13 14:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Easily solved... --W. D. Graham 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- No, and I find your attitude towards me waiting a few days before replying to be at best unhelpful. I just saw you were persuing the matter elsewhere so decided to allow that time to develop. Without seeing the book's sources I can't really comment on its veracity, however I do not agree with its assessment. --W. D. Graham 13:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
- Astronautix can be horribly unreliable in places, I usually only use it if I have something else to back it up. The other link won't load. --W. D. Graham 17:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Take a look at these links. - Link 1 and Link 2. They will be added as references soon. - Jayadevp13 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually see it the other way round - I'd sooner have {{Indian space programme}} as a more general template listing programmes but not individual satellites - if we put all the individual spacecraft in it would be too big and ungainly to find anything. I'd also favour keeping INSAT and GSAT separate from each other as although there is a lot of overlap, they aren't quite the same - a lot of the early INSATs weren't GSATs, and even now there are are a few that aren't - there are also a few GSATs that aren't INSATs. --W. D. Graham 15:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree that as more & more satellites are launched, the main template is going to be more and more messy. But I think that since it will be a major change, you will have to establish a consensus with all the major editors of the template. So what is going to be your next move. I personally think that generalising is needed indeed but not immediately. And the thing which you told about the other 2 templates, I support your view. - Jayadevp13 15:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think WP:BOLD should apply. I've started a draft here, please let me know what you think. --W. D. Graham 17:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am strongly against going bold in this case. As I said, it's a major change and it should not be done without taking the opinion of the leading editors of the template. Once all these changes are applied in the mainspace, it will be a waste of time and effort if it needs to be reverted. I personally think that it might not be necessary immediately. But I have no problem in accepting your suggestions too.
- Now my views about the draft you made. The changes to the main template is superb. The templates Radar Imaging Satellites and Space Capsule Recovery Experiments are too small and it doesn't even seem that they are going to link more pages in the near future. So I suggest that they be merged into some other template so that it doesn't seem that we are creating templates just for the sake if creating it. - Jayadevp13 15:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think WP:BOLD should apply. I've started a draft here, please let me know what you think. --W. D. Graham 17:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, pleaseconsult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
GA review
Hi,
Have you completed the review of Voyager 1??? Herald talk with me 17:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- I need to be in the correct mindset to do it. The more you keep asking makes me more disinclined to complete the review. I will do it when I have time and am in the right mindset, however if you keep asking then one of two things will happen; either I will try and rush it when I'm not in the correct mindset - and I will likely fail the article unneccessarily as a result - or it will never get done. Otherwise, please give me the time and the space to conduct the review. --W. D. Graham 17:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- WDGraham, I wanted to let you know that Planet Herald withdrew the review yesterday (see WT:GAN#Voyager 1), after having received incorrect advice on how to do so; I've just placed the appropriate FailedGA template on the article's talk page. You should probably also be informed that, at the same time, the article was submitted for FAC. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Problem with the Launching Template
Hi - it looks like there's a problem with the Launching Template. Some of the templates that I have specified launch dates in 2014 has the countdown time showing negative values. Take a look at {{Launching/Atlas V (Canaveral)}} and {{Launching/Soyuz TMA}} for examples. Can you (or whoever who did the template) try to fix it? Thanks! Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Templates have come a long way since that was written; I'm currently in the process of rewriting the entire thing using resources which have become available recently, when it's done it should be a lot more reliable. --W. D. Graham 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
on a related Launching Template question
While you're looking at the launching template, I just noticed recently that the Atlas V template seems to have a geographic location parm (Canaveral or Vandenberg ...) while the Falcon 9 (or Falcon, don't recall) does not. With Falcon 9 now launching from two launch sites, with perhaps a third or fourth on the way in the next few years, you might want to take a look at that.
I'm quite ignorant about Template and template syntax and template improvement, so there may be very good reasons for leaving it the way it is. Just thought I would bring up the rather obvious difference in the meta structure of the two templates for your consideration.
Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well you can simply create one using the Launching template.... I myself self-made the launch templates for Vega in 2012 and for Antares in 2013. One observation however: I don't remember any Falcon launches planned from VAFB in 2014, so the need for separate templates for Falcon shouldn't come until late next year. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Typically new wrappers are created when they are needed - for example if the same rocket is launching from two different sites within the space of a couple of weeks. --W. D. Graham 13:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that works fine by me. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of those more knowledgeable than me about the matter. I had just ran into it once when I tried to add the template to a Falcon 9 article, and being unfamiliar with how that is supposed to work, tried using syntax that matched the Atlas V template. That barfed. So for the uninitated, like me, it was just a bit challenging to figure out how to add whatever would work. N2e (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
B-level quality article review
Hey WD. Might you be willing to take a look at SpaceX reusable rocket launching system and evaluate it against the B-class article quality criteria for the Spaceflight project? I've written the article over the past few months, and its time to get some other eyes on it to see what it needs to improve, and a B-level review seems appropriate now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done. It failed in three areas but all were borderline, so it shouldn't take too much work to deal with these issues. --W. D. Graham 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Super. Thanks for the quick response and review! I should be able to fix those up within the next few days. N2e (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Naming convention question
WD, Could you take a look at the redirects for the third stages of Apollo 8 through 11 in Category:Derelict satellites in heliocentric orbit. Looks like I named the three named today inconsistently with the Apollo 11 redir I created nearly a year ago. I'd like to clean this up before we get too many inconsistently named. Would appreciate your help in order to keep them consistent with the standards you've previously established. Feel free to WP:MOVE as appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's the best way to handle these redirects and until now the only ones I was aware of were for the Minotaur V earlier this month. Perhaps this would benefit from a discussion at WP:SPACEFLIGHT on the best way to handle upper stages in orbit - perhaps we could look at creating multiple redirects, and maybe some kind of List of Saturn rocket hardware in orbit page. If the material can be shown to be sufficiently notable we could possibly look to start creating articles on the rockets themselves - several recent discussions have given me the impression that WP:LAUNCHES may need to be reviewed. What do you think? --W. D. Graham 12:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. That seems a solid approach. I guess I was hoping you would have a simple ["correct"? ;) ] answer for me. But I totally get that it wasn't something on anyone's mind when that was last worked/reviewed and articulated as an essay on notability. Since I was not involved in the last cycle, I'll let you kick off the discussion, but will be sure to weigh in on any process being discussed, or Talk page where it is discussed. N2e (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a think about the best way to approach it. --W. D. Graham 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. That seems a solid approach. I guess I was hoping you would have a simple ["correct"? ;) ] answer for me. But I totally get that it wasn't something on anyone's mind when that was last worked/reviewed and articulated as an essay on notability. Since I was not involved in the last cycle, I'll let you kick off the discussion, but will be sure to weigh in on any process being discussed, or Talk page where it is discussed. N2e (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Since this will soon be archived off your Talk page, do you think we should move the discussion of naming conventions for redirect pointing to derelict upper stage rocket bodies to some other page so we don't forget about this one? N2e (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've marked this thread so the bot won't archive it. --W. D. Graham 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Template:Launching/Long March
Hi, Thanks for all your patience regarding my blatant mistakes done till date. Just want to ask you, that the template has been removed by me from Chang'e 3 article. I removed it since the spacecraft was launched successfully, but later discovered that you updated the template page with launched = yes & their was an updated message displayed. Do you want me to undo my changes? & secondly, when should the template be removed from such Future Spaceflight articles? Thanks ! - Ninney (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Ninney: Usually the template remains in place for a little while after the launch - at least a few hours (or a few days if the launch fails), but it's not a huge problem. For major missions, as is the case here, we usually switch to {{current spaceflight}} after the launch anyway, so I've gone ahead and done that. {{Launching/Long March}} is currently still displayed on a few other pages (such as Long March 3B) but should be left there - after a while the template will be hidden by changing the visibility of the master page. --W. D. Graham 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks ! Gotcha ... Wilco Just thought of documenting few steps After launching, though not exactly to be followed. Listed for your kind perusal. * Step 01.> Update 2013 in Spaceflight with proper citation. * Step 01.> Update template {{Orbital launches in 2013}}. * Step 02.> In the Spaceflight article, update the launch news with reliable sources & then remove {{Template:Launching/Wrappers}} from top of article & add {{Current spaceflight}}. Also, add {{Template:Orbital launches in 2013}} in 'References' section below. * Step 03.> Check {{Future spaceflights}}, If Spaceflight name exists, move to 'Recently Launched' section below. * Step 04.> Check other related Templates & mark the spaceflight with (En route) for Space Probes etc. ... * Step Last.> Update {{Template:Launching/Wrappers}} with next scheduled flight. - Ninney (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned {{Future spaceflights}} can go to hell, it serves no useful purpose whatsoever but I couldn't get it deleted. With regards the others, usually it's just a case of updating all the linked articles, but some clarification and a mention of the OLBY (e.g. {{Orbital launches in 2013}}) template would probably be helpful. {{Launching/Wrappers}} doesn't usually need to be changed, it is automatically updated when the individual templates are changed. --W. D. Graham 21:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- CBERS-1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Eccentricity
- CBERS-2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Eccentricity
- CBERS-2B (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Eccentricity
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
NOAA-B Quality Review
I was wondering if you could give the article on NOAA-B a review. I spent a few days cleaning up the article at the start of the year from the original version which was to be blunt a semi-literate mess. I'm hoping that I did enough to get it to B status.Graham1973 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments and the re-assessment. I've found that the Nasa Pre-launch summary is still reachable and I've downloaded it. That should solve the pre-launch details once I've read through it.Graham1973 (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yutu
Hi WD. FYI, I had created a redir a few days ago for Yutu (Lunar rover) (yes, with a capital "L"). I just happened to observe that you've been doing some fixing today, and moved a different article Yutu (lunar rover) (created 7 Dec 2013) to Yutu (rover). So since I see that, now, a Yutu article exists, I just modified my redir from Chang'e 3 to the Yutu (rover) article.
I'm fine with what you did; just thought I should let you know. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I found it in the new page search results and had a go at trying to clean it up ahead of the landing. It's been moved around a few times since then but I've put it at (rover) for now per the precedent with Mars probes. Hopefully in a week or so we'll have a good case for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --W. D. Graham 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
B-level quality article review
Hey WD. Might you be willing to take a look at SpaceX reusable rocket launching system and evaluate it against the B-class article quality criteria for the Spaceflight project? I've written the article over the past few months, and its time to get some other eyes on it to see what it needs to improve, and a B-level review seems appropriate now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
- Done. It failed in three areas but all were borderline, so it shouldn't take too much work to deal with these issues. --W. D. Graham 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Super. Thanks for the quick response and review! I should be able to fix those up within the next few days. N2e (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Status of the fixes are summarized on the Talk page over there. We're still in process; not all there yet.
But I have one question for you. The Mach conversion templates are much more complex than the ordinary unit conversions, and things seem to work rather differently. To date, I've not been successful in figuring out how to use them to get the units in the way(s) you suggest; although we have gotten rid of the non-US spelling of kilometers (thanks to User:Chris the speller!).
Since the cited source provides the two velocities in terms of Mach numbers (Mach 6 and Mach 10), do you still think that the correct way to show the units is in the order km/s (mph, Mach no.)? Even though I haven't figured out how to do it yet, it would be good to know exactly how you think those units should be shown in the article prose, in a perfect world, to get past the B-level article criteria, so I can ensure I'm not hitting my head against a wall in trying to do something with them. You can respond over there on the article Talk page, if you'd like, and include whatever part of this question to you that you think makes sense for context. Thanks. N2e (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response on that. N2e (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the article is ready for another look
I believe each of the ("minor") issues in the B-Class review have now been addressed. Please take a look at the Talk page where I've attempted to summarize the discussion/progress/status as well as state a position on where we are vis a vis B-class status. See what you think. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Done, provisionally assessed as B-class, pending resolution of the title discussion by the end of the year --W. D. Graham 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. And I'm guessing we can find some consensus if we give it another go with a broader group of editors. I'll paln to do something on that, probably within the week. N2e (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you developed the Molniya-M few years back. Perhaps you could help polish the stub on Molniya-L I just started (I am not an expert in spaceflight topics). Molniya article needs much help, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like a good start, I'll try to find some time to expand it soon --W. D. Graham 09:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Northamerica1000(talk) 13:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
N2e (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Gaia
Why do you think Gaia (spacecraft) is the best titles? It's literally the worst title you could have used, there are dozens of better titles such as Gaia Space Telescope, Gaia (Space Telescope), Gaia Space Observatory, Gaia (Space Observatory), Gaia Probe etc it's referred to as "Gaia Space Telescope" by all reliable sources, including scientific journals. I've not seen ANYWHERE refer to it as "Gaia (spacecraft)" Atotalstranger (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is called Gaia, not "Gaia Space Telescope" or "Gaia probe" or anything else. Gaia. Now, the word "Gaia" can mean several other things, so we have to put something on the end of the title to distinguish it - we use the word "spacecraft" because it is clear and concise, and it is what editors have agreed upon. We put this in parentheses to make it clear to readers that it is not part of the spacecraft's name. Again, this is an established convention which has been agreed upon - both for spaceflight articles and articles in general (note that the section about "natural disambiguation" does not apply to Gaia because "space telescope" or some other construction is not part of its name). I would suggest you read up on disambiguation before attempting any further page moves of this nature. --W. D. Graham 23:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- SPACENAME was created and edited by 1 or 2 users back in 2011 and isn't wikipedia Manual of Style, every report on Gaia refers to it as "Gaia Space Telescope" or "Gaia Space Observatory", I suppose you should rename Hubble Space Telescope to "Hubble (spacecraft)"? ESA refers to Gaia as "Gaia space observatory" on their official website as well as numerous second hand sources 1, 2, 3 4 5 6, but whatever. I really don't care enough to continue this discussion any longer. Atotalstranger (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SPACENAME is a subject area-specific implementation of Wikipedia's general naming conventions. You've been pointed to a policy and a guideline.
- You either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge the difference between a name (such as "Hubble Space Telescope") and a description (such as "Gaia space telescope" or "Gaia space observatory"), in part because you apparently disregard the absence of capitalization. The latter examples simply mean "space telescope/observatory called 'Gaia'"; neither phrase, with or without title-case capitalization, is the entity's name. —David Levy 16:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- SPACENAME was created and edited by 1 or 2 users back in 2011 and isn't wikipedia Manual of Style, every report on Gaia refers to it as "Gaia Space Telescope" or "Gaia Space Observatory", I suppose you should rename Hubble Space Telescope to "Hubble (spacecraft)"? ESA refers to Gaia as "Gaia space observatory" on their official website as well as numerous second hand sources 1, 2, 3 4 5 6, but whatever. I really don't care enough to continue this discussion any longer. Atotalstranger (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- As WDGraham explained, the titles that you've suggested fail to accurately convey the spacecraft's name. I've seen the phrase "Gaia space telescope" and at least one instance of the capitalized form in a newspaper article's title, but that's merely a description.
- As indicated at WP:PRECISION, "usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." In this instance, our standard disambiguation term is "spacecraft" (unless multiple spacecrafts have the same name, necessitating greater precision).
- Please also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. —David Levy 23:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Tis the season
|
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! | 
|
| Hope you and yours have a great holidays and a Happy New Year! — Huntster (t @ c) 22:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks @Huntster:, merry Christmas and a happy new year to you too! --W. D. Graham 22:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi there
|
The Space Barnstar | |
| For outstanding contributions and editing on articles about space. Fotaun (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
The WikiProject Barnstar | |
| For contributions to various projects and related articles. Fotaun (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For your large contributions to knowledge and editing. Fotaun (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas!
Jayadevp13 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp13 06:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Apologies
Sorry if I've exasperated you recently, W.D. You seem to have misunderstood my intentions at times, given your responses. For example, when I first reverted your edit to the Chang'e 3 infobox I also immediately began a discussion on the talk page, as per WP:BRD, yet you reverted my revert and admonished me to follow BRD, which I already had! Then today you edited Yutu (rover) with the summary, "partial rv pending discussion at Talk:Chang'e 3 - if an edit is disputed, please don't just go ahead and apply it to other articles". Evidently you didn't realize that all I had done was to append (LC-2) to the launch site. The fact that I didn't change Xichang Satellite Launch Center to Xichang, as you would have preferred, was not contrary to BRD. I didn't 'just go ahead', I left the link as I had found it. In fact, your own edit was not made following consensus! But that's by the by. I'm just here to reassure you of my good intentions, to apologize if I rubbed you up the wrong way, and to gently remind you to assume good faith. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- With respect, you did change it. I was mistakenly under the impression that you did so in your most recent edit when in fact it preceded the first disputed edit to Chang'e 3, so I apologise for that comment, however it was still your change of format which was reverted and therefore, as at Chang'e 3, BRD is wholly appropriate. --W. D. Graham 10:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. I'd made that edit to Yutu (rover) on 17 December, after making this edit to Chang'e 3 on 16 December (among others that week). Both edits stood for a few days, and I assumed (ass-u-me.. I know!) that they and the other edits were acceptable. So when I undid your edit on 21 December, I did so with the summary "Undid good faith edit by WDGraham (talk). Pointless to add a redlink that is at odds with the launch center article. See talk page." and began our discussion. Really, I just wanted to share my thoughts as to what I was doing and why, and maybe garner consensus. Somehow, in the process, I seem to have agitated you. Looking back more closely, perhaps my downfall was forgetting your original edit summary: "add pad". I should have simply removed the redlink for the time being, and not the (LC-2). ..Well anyway, I hope you can see that I was trying to follow WP:BRD and wotnot. Adding (LC-2) to the Yutu infobox was something that I knew (assumed!) you'd agree with, at least in principle. At no point did I make what I considered a contentious edit. But I didn't come here to make excuses, I just don't want you to think I'm a knob, basically. We seem to have bumped heads is all. Nevermind, eh? nagualdesign (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was just a little slow picking up on it. With Chang'e 3 I initially presumed that the pad number was not present and added it - it wasn't until that was reverted that I realised it had been present before and removed. I've dealt with enough disruptive editors to know that you aren't one - although perhaps my previous dealings with such users have left me a little bitter and slow to assume good faith, for which I apologise. --W. D. Graham 09:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. ..Hey, here's a little gem for you, as a British English user; The word apologize, and several others ending in -ize, aren't the 'Americanisms' that most Brits baulk at. Whilst it's true that Americans have always favoured the -ize spelling, the -ise spelling was only really favoured in Britain for about 80 years up until about 1927. (Check out this Google Ngram) Although not a lot of people realize that.
nagualdesign (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- -ise vs -ize certainly has a rather convoluted history - I seem to remember reading somewhere that -ize used to be the only spelling in both countries until -ise sprung up in the UK. I've used -ise for most of my life and generally prefer it, but it would make life so much easier if we didn't have these silly regional variations... Anyway, I'm glad we managed to resolve this misunderstanding, and merry Christmas! --W. D. Graham 22:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers. All the best for the new year. nagualdesign (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- -ise vs -ize certainly has a rather convoluted history - I seem to remember reading somewhere that -ize used to be the only spelling in both countries until -ise sprung up in the UK. I've used -ise for most of my life and generally prefer it, but it would make life so much easier if we didn't have these silly regional variations... Anyway, I'm glad we managed to resolve this misunderstanding, and merry Christmas! --W. D. Graham 22:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. ..Hey, here's a little gem for you, as a British English user; The word apologize, and several others ending in -ize, aren't the 'Americanisms' that most Brits baulk at. Whilst it's true that Americans have always favoured the -ize spelling, the -ise spelling was only really favoured in Britain for about 80 years up until about 1927. (Check out this Google Ngram) Although not a lot of people realize that.
- Yeah, I was just a little slow picking up on it. With Chang'e 3 I initially presumed that the pad number was not present and added it - it wasn't until that was reverted that I realised it had been present before and removed. I've dealt with enough disruptive editors to know that you aren't one - although perhaps my previous dealings with such users have left me a little bitter and slow to assume good faith, for which I apologise. --W. D. Graham 09:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. I'd made that edit to Yutu (rover) on 17 December, after making this edit to Chang'e 3 on 16 December (among others that week). Both edits stood for a few days, and I assumed (ass-u-me.. I know!) that they and the other edits were acceptable. So when I undid your edit on 21 December, I did so with the summary "Undid good faith edit by WDGraham (talk). Pointless to add a redlink that is at odds with the launch center article. See talk page." and began our discussion. Really, I just wanted to share my thoughts as to what I was doing and why, and maybe garner consensus. Somehow, in the process, I seem to have agitated you. Looking back more closely, perhaps my downfall was forgetting your original edit summary: "add pad". I should have simply removed the redlink for the time being, and not the (LC-2). ..Well anyway, I hope you can see that I was trying to follow WP:BRD and wotnot. Adding (LC-2) to the Yutu infobox was something that I knew (assumed!) you'd agree with, at least in principle. At no point did I make what I considered a contentious edit. But I didn't come here to make excuses, I just don't want you to think I'm a knob, basically. We seem to have bumped heads is all. Nevermind, eh? nagualdesign (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
