User talk:WDGraham/Archive 2011

:Thanks --GW… 14:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink/Issue 1}}

:You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (The Downlink: Issue 1). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

• Hurricane Devon - User is blocked.

* Jmclark911 - User is blocked.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 15:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

For all your work on the Spaceflight project. And Happy New Year. Hoping our Wiki project, and the greater enterprise, all progress wonderfully in the new decade. Wwheaton (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Happy new year to you as well. --GW… 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I would like to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbital_launches_by_year.svg for a school project but I need to know where the data is from. Is there any Source?

thanks 85.233.19.211 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• It is an amalgamation of data from many sources. --GW… 18:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Spaceflight for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview here. If you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, feel free to skip it. If you have any questions, you can drop me a note on my talk page. Thanks. – SMasters (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

:I'll do this in a couple of days when I have more time --GW… 05:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The actual names of the Japanese service branches use American spelling, not British. For example, the Ministry of Defence is not the same thing as the Ministry of Defense. In addition, the GAC article is written using American spelling as shown in its title. 68.96.225.101 (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:I don't have an issue with those. My problems were with your edits to Suborbital spaceflight in 2008 and Constitution of Japan, where you made large-scale changes of dialect. --GW… 05:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, with the Constitution, I figured that since practically all Japan-related articles use American spelling, it would be appropriate to change it. For the Suborbital change, I went in to change the spelling for just the JMSDF and GAC links, but my browser accidentally ended up highlighting every (subjective) misspelling and I wasn't really paying attention to that one at the time. 68.96.225.101 (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:Generally, no article should be changed from one dialect to another unless it has strong national ties, or unless there is a clear consensus to do so. --GW… 07:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I see that when you created Template:TLS-L, you left 1945 as an unlinked year, unlike the other years. I went to edit it to correct that and saw the code for 1945 was commented out deliberately, so I left it alone. Why is 1945 not linked like the other years? Thanks. — O'Dea 21:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:Nothing happened in that year within the scope of the timeline. --GW… 22:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you, I remember now, people were busy in 1945. I wonder if it might be a good idea to simply delete 1945 from the list because now we have the inconsistency that when the template is in use on a particular page such as 2007, say, both 2007 and 1945 appear as black text in the open template, which is not strictly a "true" statement of which page the template is active in. What do you think? — O'Dea 22:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Alternatively, perhaps 1945 could be rendered as blue text, without underlining. — O'Dea 22:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

::::I don't like the idea of removing it altogether, that would either leave a gap or a jump in the sequence. I have no objection to changing the colour, as long as it fits in with the links, and it doesn't confuse readers to have blue text that isn't a link. --GW… 22:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::Okay, I changed it on an experimental basis to eyeball the effect. See what you think. — O'Dea 22:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

|}

Not sure if you're aware, but there's a discussion going on here about reforming the infoboxes for spaceflight articles; you may have an opinion. Mlm42 (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, now that Microsatellite is a disambiguation page, don't forget to WP:FIXDABLINKS. [http://toolserver.org/~jason/dab_fix_list.php?title=Microsatellite This tool] is a great help. Cheers, --JaGa^talk 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Isn't there a bot programmed to do that? --GW… 23:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Nope. It's done by editors, usually those at the WP:DPL project. --JaGa^talk 09:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The above article could use a critical look over. Feel free to change the issues.--  Novus  Orator  13:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:Project Isinglass/GA1‎}}

• Please archive this. --GW… 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink/Issue 2}}

:You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 00:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (The Downlink: Issue 2) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 00:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

{{talkback|User talk:ChiZeroOne|Tools question|ts=16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)}}

Hi GW. ChiZero and I have been discussing something and he suggested I ask you for an opinion. Rather than copy the discussion somewhere else, it is probably best just to point you to that discussion on ChiZero's Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

{{tmbox

|style = notice

|small =

|image = Image:Updated DYK query.svg

|text = On 5 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Progress M-09M, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Progress M-09M spacecraft, currently resupplying the International Space Station, is carrying a birthday present for station commander Scott J. Kelly? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [http://stats.grok.se/en/201102/Progress_M-09M quick check]) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

}} —HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I saw you reverted the change to the name of this probe I did in Template:Orbital launches in 1959. I understand that Luna 1 is a retrospective name but I insist it's a most common denomination than мечта. Anyway Luna soviet probes could be denominated with their development names, Ye-1 No. 4 in this case. Does it worth a discussion in WikiProject Spaceflight? Tom Paine (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:Those templates don't use the most common names, they use the correct names immediately after launch, which in this case is Mechta. I agree that Luna 1 is the more common name, however exceptions can be made in cases where the common name is incorrect, so whilst the text in the navbox should remain the same regardless, a discussion on the title of the article itself would be beneficial. I do not believe that it would be a good idea to use development names for missions which received official names, since the official names would be the correct names of the missions. In the past I have only used the development names where official names were not assigned. --GW… 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say what a marvellous job you're doing with the Downlink - it's really useful, and I'm astounded as to how you keep track of everything. Is there anything specific with which I can lend a hand? Colds7ream (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Do you fancy writing an editorial? --GW… 18:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

::Can do; possibly something to encourage more collaboration... Colds7ream (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for being one of SuggestBot's users! I hope you have found the bot's suggestions useful.

We are in the process of switching from our previous list-based signup process to using templates and userboxes, and I have therefore added the appropriate template to your user talk page. You should receive the first set of suggestions within a day, and since we'll be automating SuggestBot you will from then on continue to receive them regularly at the desired frequency.

We now also have a userbox that you can use to let others know you're using SuggestBot, and if you don't want to clutter your user talk page the bot can post to a sub-page in your userspace. More information about the userbox and usage of the template is available on User:SuggestBot/Getting Recommendations Regularly.

If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me on my user talk page. Thanks again, Nettrom (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Colds7ream|Pegasus|ts=11:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)}}

Hey GW. Question for you. I "know" (believe?) that every payload satellite that is orbiting Earth is considered notable for purposes of Wikipedia. Likewise, the definition I've seen in Wikipedia for NEOs seems to include heliocentric spacecraft ("they include ... a number of solar-orbiting spacecraft").

1. Do you know if this definition tends to include all "spacecraft", including the spent upper stages for these heliocentric payloads, which would also be in heliocentric (and potentially NEO) orbits? Or does the consideration leave out spent/nonfunctional/derelict heliocentric upper stages?
2. For earth orbits, do I have it right that payload satellites are Wiki-notable by definition?
3. Has Wikipedia any settled consensus on which, if any, spent upper stages in Earth-orbit are notable? What is the criteria by which they are, or are not? I realize of course that "non-functional" (and perhaps passivated) makes them generally of no interest for most, but not all, purposes. Clearly each spent upper stage uses up some of the common resource space "real estate" and thus creates a set of externalities for others who are attempting to utilize space, especially near-Earth orbital space. And I assume that spent upper stages typically sweep a larger cross-sectional-area than do their satellites, so would seem to have somewhat higher probability of a collision event than, say, the Kosmos 2251/Iridium collision.
4. Finally, and I'm guessing this one will be easy for you, where is the off-Wikipedia (public) database that would have the raw data on Earth-orbiting artificial satellites, functional and derelict, payload or spent upper stages? Do you happen to know if it is easy to sort by "spent upper stages" when looking at the data?

Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the notability of individual upper stages has ever been discussed. Obviously each class of upper stage is notable, however by precedent there are not currently any articles for individual units. The current situation is unclear since it has proven impossible to reach a clear consensus on any specific guidelines, and last time it was discussed it nearly resulted in a major rift within the Spaceflight WikiProject, so on the whole it is a can of worms that should probably never be opened. That said, the general consensus seems to be that all functional spacecraft are notable, as are non-functional payload spacecraft. There is no precedent for the inclusion of upper stages, in Geocentric orbit or otherwise, and my instinct would be that they are not sufficiently notable to be covered in their own articles. Going off at a slight tangent, one issue which has not been sufficiently resolved is the existence of launch articles - for example Falcon 9 Flight 1, as it is unclear as to whether the launch of a spacecraft is in of itself notable enough to justify its own article. In most cases, the launch is covered in the payload's article. Perhaps a way forward would be that if there is anything interesting about the upper stage, then it be covered in the article of the payload which it placed into orbit, or if a launch has its own article then it could be covered there. Perhaps the cutoff for having articles on individual launches should be if there is too much information on the launch, rocket and upper stage to display easily and concisely in the payload article(s). For data on objects in orbit, I would suggest looking for a copy of the Satellite Catalogue; personally I prefer [http://www.planet4589.org/space/log/satcat.txt Jonathan McDowell's version]. --GW… 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks for the reply. I think your suggested "way forward" to begin to cover anything interesting about upper stages in either the payload article (or the launch article, if it has one) is a very good idea. I have done one example today, by adding a "Second stage" subsection heading in the Falcon 9 Flight 2 article for a bit of notable second-stage info that I had previously added to that article.

::I also agree that, by themselves, upper stages are not generally sufficiently notable to have an article of their own.

::Do you have a link to the "previous discussion" you mentioned? I'd like to read that. N2e (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

:The most recent discussion about notability was at WT:HSF. I think it has since been archived. --GW… 17:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

::Okay, found it. It's here, and the discussion seems to continue to the next many Talk page sections as well. Very glad I missed that one. And I DEFINITELY don't want to do something on upper stages that would restart that.

::Having said that, I'll just note here that I didn't see anyone bring in the argument that some of those orbiting spacecraft may create a conflict in space over the use of the inherently scarce space "real estate" and thus create an externality for others who are also attempting to utilize space. This may be a weak argument, but it does indicate that long-lived spacecraft may have one more idea in their favor for separate articles than, say, an extinct trilobyte that we have a single fossil of (as you correctly pointed out, they each get their own Wikipedia articles).

::From here on out, I'll be thinking/working on your suggested "way forward" from time to time. Notable upper stages get mentioned in the payload article, or launch article if it exists. And I may one day try my hand at an article to tie together the topic (spent upper stages) at a macro level, rather than at the level of individual second stages. Thanks for your great help on this. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Colds7ream|Pegasus|ts=13:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)}}

Not strictly a talkback but while you are here,

{{Talkback|Talk:Sparkie (satellite)}} --ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

|}

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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) 11:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey GW, how goes things? Was just wondering if you were planning on moving User:GW Simulations/DOS (spacecraft) into article space anytime soon? Was hoping to get started on the Salyut reorganisation we'd previously discussed. I've also started work on an editorial for you, not finished yet, which you can read in my sandbox at User:Colds7ream/Sandbox#Editorial if you're interested. Anyway, hope you're well! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. I'll try and get DOS finished soon. I'm a little busy in real life at the moment, if you want to make changes to it whilst it is still in my userspace then please feel free. The editorial looks good, the next issue is due out on Tuesday; do you think you can have it ready by then? Thanks --GW… 20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks, that'd be great, and will do. As for the editorial, I've finished a draft, see what you think! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

:::That looks good. Are you happy for it to be used as-is? --GW… 07:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Thanks - sure, use it as you like, fiddle around with it if you think that'd be helpful. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Launching has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 117Avenue (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Current spaceflight has been nominated for merging with Template:Current. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink/Issue 3}}

:You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Spaceflight at 09:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (The Downlink: Issue 3) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 09:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC).

Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Current_spaceflight&curid=6992794&diff=416901849&oldid=416829437 this edit]: Could you tell me where exactly at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight I can find information on handling and covering spaceflights in the news? I couldn't really find anything in a quick search. If there is a page or a section, it's probably best to link straight to it instead. --Conti|✉ 15:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• At this stage it is a more general link to the project and its talk pages, however I feel that is the right place to be directing editors for guidance. The message was intended to suggest that editors could consult the project if they had issues they wanted to raise, if there is a better way to word this, feel free to suggest something. --GW… 16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'd try to keep it general, then. "For more information, visit us" or something. Are there any editing guidelines at all on the WikiProject? If so, you could link to them instead. --Conti|✉ 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

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, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as being a member of WikiProject Rocketry. In order to establish how many members are still actively editing within the project, if you still consider yourself to be an active member of WikiProject rocketry, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members and move your name from the list of inactive members at the bottom of the page to the list of active members at the top of the page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Rocketry at 19:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (WikiProject Rocketry activity check) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC).

|}

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi GW. Thanks for renaming the MDA Space Infrastructure Servicing vehicle article, that I recently created, to the proper name format, per WP:SPACENAME.

I just wanted to let you know that I tried to find the naming convention for spacecraft before I created the article, and was unsuccessful with several searches. I think I tried "WP:spacecraft naming" and "WP:spaceflight naming" and some third thing that I no longer recall -- but I failed to find the naming standard you have developed. I did find a rocket naming standard using that sort of search. At any rate, you might want to create a couple of redirects to other sorts of ways that folks might go looking for "spacecraft naming". Just a thought. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll look into it. --GW… 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi GW. As someone still pretty new to WikiProject Spaceflight, I'm not clear on the standard for article creation on satellites. Is it (typically) one article per Earth-launch? Or one article per satellite? Or something else? And by what criteria is it normally determined which way to go?

The example I ran into today is Orbital Express, which consisted of two spacecraft: the Autonomous Space Transport Robotic Operations (ASTRO) vehicle and a prototype modular next-generation serviceable satellite (NEXTSat). Near as I can tell, we have an article only on the launch and mission, not on the two individual spacecraft, which (per the article) have rather large differences in planned orbital decay, etc., making them both :Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth today, but they would not track together, be in space the same time, etc. How is this normally handled? How should it be handled in your opinion? N2e (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:One per satellite. There are a small number of de facto exceptions where a single article covers a number of related spacecraft without articles of their own; I see these cases as programme articles, where the individual satellites have yet to receive articles. MiTEx is another example. The only situations where I would see it acceptable to make a permanent exception would be non-functional subsatellites (eg. Romb), and launch failures of multiple-satellite military missions where spacecraft details are not available (eg. the NOSS launch failure back in the 1990s). I've been meaning to sort Orbital Express out for some time, I will try to do it later tonight. --GW… 18:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks! That is what I thought, and I'm good with that. I presume then that, as with the two sats I mentioned above, there are likely a large number of satellites that do not, but should per the standard, have articles? No?

::Just curious. I know you plan to fix Orbital Express... But is there a place we keep a list of such "to be created" satellite articles. I have clearly created a few new articles from time to time, but I'm far from efficient at it. I imagine that, with some standard "virtual template" for a new article, the specifics on a bunch of new sat articles could be filled in rather more quickly on a day when someone with comparative advantage in creating satellite articles goes after it in a sort of "production mode". N2e (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:::We haven't got a complete list. I started an audit of orbital spaceflights some time ago, but it is incomplete and out of date. I played around with templates for a while, but I found that it was hard to get the grammar right with then, so I wrote some software to assist with mass-production of articles by automatically querying online databases and then inserting the data into a boilerplate article. I have used it to write many of the articles on Progress and DS spacecraft and communications satellites; on a good day and with fairly simple spacecraft I can get a rate of four to six articles per hour with it. Unfortunately some of the integral components of the software are not redistributable, so I cannot provide copies for others to use. Hopefully I'll find some time to get back to writing large numbers of articles soon. --GW… 20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

:{{done}} --GW… 22:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks. You are definitely the one with comparative advantage in that! N2e (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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) 10:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GW, I've asked a handfull of folks to visit your suggestion.LanceBarber (talk) 07:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Talk:MESSENGER|Would you infobox-slaves please just LOOK?|ts=18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)}}

Hi GW. There is a discussion going on at Talk:MESSENGER, most of which you may, or may not, be interested in.

However, one part that I would really like your view on is the extent to which articles like MESSENGER are "articles about missions, not machines,". My guess is you have a lot of experience across the broader set of spaceflight articles where there is both a spacecraft (which as you and I have previously discussed, generally each get their own WP article, may utilize spacecraft-specific infoboxes, etc.) and spaceflight mission which is of course, if notable and verifiable, also worthy of coverage in Wikipedia. So my guess is there are quite a number of articles about both missions and machines (spacecraft), I would guess we might have some guidelines for how we deal with them, no? Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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) 09:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey GW, just wondering what's up with this month's Downlink, and if you need any help with it? Also, could you please take a look at Mir Docking Module to assess it for the B-class criteria? Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've been too busy to get anything done, and it is now so far into the month that I was thinking it would be easier to do a longer issue next month instead. I might need someone to write the whole of the June issue as I am unlikely to be available for that either. I'll try to find time to look at the Mir Docking Module article. --GW… 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey GW Simulations, I thought I would mention to you that user, Jenks24 is suggesting to rename the Kepler observatory article to "Kepler mission". I entirely disagree but I was hoping for your input as you are a relatively prominent editor and member of WP:Spaceflight. Thanks! --Xession (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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) 11:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

|}

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

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) 11:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

|}

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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) 11:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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) 15:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

|}

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello GW,

Thank you for your interest in the ISS article, you have mentioned that the proposed draft is 'full of factual and grammatical errors' please elaborate on this by mentioning the factual errors, it would be a big help.

Penyulap _talk 09:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, I've got some more questions, if you'd have time to read them, I'd appreciate it. Penyulap _talk 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello GW.

Since you're the creator of and the major contributor to Template:OV, would you be kind enough to respond to my proposition on its talkpage?

Greetings

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey GW, any chance you could please take a quick look at Mir Docking Module to see if it meets the B-class criteria? Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

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) 14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

|}

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did you do that?--Craigboy (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• I did provide an edit summary. Spacecraft titles should be named according to WP:SPACENAME for consistency. I saw no reason to depart from that. The page will probably be moved to Tiangong anyway when the first one launches, as it will become the clear primary topic. --GW… 07:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=STS-135&diff=440639962&oldid=440636193 that]. I got an edit conflict with you while trying to fix the time conversion and it seems to have dragged that out from somewhere - I didn't knowingly edit lower down the page at all and I wouldn't know the difference between those two things if it bit me on the nose. Apologies! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

;[{{fullurl:Template:Infobox_Mars_crater|oldid=348599912}}#bodyContent Ad:Template:Infobox_Mars_crater]

You may be interested in this discussion Bulwersator (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi GW. I attempted to add a quotation you requested in the article Comparison of heavy lift launch systems. That quotation now supports "the definition of 'super-heavy lift' given in the Augustine report," such as it is. That particular "note" does not say anything about 50,000 kg, nor is it implied to be 50,000 kg by where the note is placed in the article, so I think my cite is probably okay except for the formatting problem mentioned in no. 1 below.

However, that change led to a nested set of other changes and issues. I would like your help on three things:

• 1) please check the formating of that "note". Apparently I don't know how to do syntax for a note with a cite template included.
• 2) please check how I handled the other location (in just this article) where the 50,000 kg claim was made. Validate I marked it up correctly.
• 3) You will find that that same citation is used two other places in a template (Template:Launch vehicles) that is used in the article. I went to that template to indicate that both the 50 tonne (SHL) and 20 tonne (HL) "failed verification". Please check that out; but be sure to see the Talk which has some history (from a few months ago) where editors are discussing what is, and what is not, cited.

If you have any energy left for this issue when you are done, there is a meta-question from some time ago on the Talk page of the Comparison of Heavy-lift article (Talk:Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems#Definition_of_heavy_lift) that has never been resolved. In reality, as far as I know, Wikipedia has no referenced support for the definitions of small lift, medium lift, mid-heavy lift, and heavy lift. So I really question if Wikipedia ought to have these definitions and sub-classifications without good support for the definitions. Your input would be welcome. Thanks for reading this far. Please ping me if you decide to help improve this topic. Best regards, N2e (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

:how difficult is it to get the ball rolling on merging the launch system articles anyway? I think there needs to be some sort of formal merge discussion in advance but I've never been very informed regarding any formal wikipedia process much more complicated than a simple direct edit. The launch system articles clearly need to be merged.Zebulin (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

::Thanks GW for jumping in with a substantive proposal to improve the mess that was those five comparison articles! I have offered support on the appropriate Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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) 12:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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) 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

|}

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Xl has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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) 13:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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) 11:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

|}

I think popping in a poorly written starter was more attention seeking to get some new editors into the project, they'd probably know more than I do about it. Every scrap of trash or photographic artifact gets a writeup, no reason why that power can't be harnessed I though. That community loves to chit-chat, and we always need more editors. Incidentally what do you think of the other 'proper' work going on ? any tips ? Penyulap _talk 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

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) 12:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There might be a case for caps in "integrated truss structure", but why are you moving common nouns such as "scanning multichannel microwave radiometer" to upper case? It's a type of radiometer, isn't it? Would you capitalise Electric Drill? Lawn Mower? Vaccuum Cleaner? Tony (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• In the context of that article, it is the name of an experiment flown on two satellites; the article refers to the specific instances rather than the abstract concept, and hence it is a proper noun. --GW… 08:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

:::First, do NOT template regulars; second, you could equally supply a substantive section title rather than a meaningless "September 2011", which I've changed. Third, no, edit-summaries are not obligatory. Tony (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to your point here, thanks for the explanation. The article refers to the equipment items in the plural in one place: "The final few months of operation was considerably fortuitous as it allowed the calibration of the radiometers and their products", downcased. Can you assure me, then, that these radiometers were unique and have not since been used in other circumstances? Tony (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

:::[http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/jwalker/papers/jgr07.pdf Example 1]

:::[http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1145331 Example 2, IEEE no less]

:::[http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/terminology/concept_html?term=nimbus-7%20scanning%20multichannel%20microwave%20radiometer Example 3, lower-cased in google search, but says "too busy" to show right now]

:::[http://www.archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19910021332 NASA document]

:::I could go on ... that's just among the first 10 google rankings. I think we should reconsider this. Tony (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think dealing with these on a case-by-case basis, possibly through WP:RM would be a good idea. With regards the SMMR, there are sources which use the other capitalisation, such as [http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/smmr_instrument.gd.html NSIDC] and [http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/experimentSearch.do?spacecraft=Seasat%201 NSSDC]. That said, it is clear that neither usage is universal, in some cases it isn't even consistent within the same site - [http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/arctic-summer-sea-ice-age this] is from the same site as your third example) --GW… 08:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

::::OK, that's a good reason, I think, that WP's house style should prevail. Like all publishers, we don't allow other publishers to dictate our own style: what's at stake is often internal consistency within the publication (in this case en.WP); when no one or hardly anyone externally applies our house style—or when it's a proprietary or patented or commercial term—a strong case can be made. But here, that's not the case, so we go with the significant proportion who do lower-case it. (Clearly, a lot of writers in the field are uncomfortable with the alphabet-soup effect ... very clunky for readers, especially those who don't look at an item every day. Someone writing up the original ISS documentation clearly decided they'd pump it up anything vaguely technical with caps; this goes against traditional capitalisation rules in English.) Tony (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And if the article is called by its generic name but really refers only to its use in an experiment in one project, then I think the article title could be capitalised, but only if (ISS) follows it. Otherwise, the title is misleading, isn't it? I see articles from the 70s and 80s on this device, long before the ISS was ever thought of, and they're in lower case (like ... lawn mower). For example: [http://www.mendeley.com/research/a-scanning-multichannel-microwave-radiometer-for-nimbusg-and-seasata/ this, which lowercases it when referring to its initial development for a specific spacecraft (Nimbus-G) in 1976] and [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17814200 this one, for the NIH's Gulf of Alaska SEW], plus tons more. Tony (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering Tony is an editor with ~70,000 edits, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tony1&diff=452489905&oldid=452489632 this] was rather unnecessary... see WT:DTTR. Kind regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, should have checked who it was. He made a few questionable and unexplained moves, one of which was cut-and-paste, and I'm suffering from a lot of Wikistress at the moment, I just didn't check who it was. --GW… 08:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

::Apology accepted. Some of these equipment item names are clearly on one side or the other of the capitalisation rules; others are in a grey area. I'm happy to discuss them with you on a case-by-case basis. Have you been in a position of having to draw the line between the two options before? If so, your input to capitalisation more generally would be appreciated. Tony (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

:::Within the field of spaceflight, we generally lean towards regarding all spacecraft and instrument names, both descriptive and abstract, as proper nouns. That said, there are exceptions, and I am not aware of the issue ever having been discussed in depth; it is more of a de facto position, and I would welcome a more detailed discussion on the pros and cons of each approach. --GW… 08:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

::::But see the examples I found above (nearly half in the first ten google rankings). Obviously, people in the field use both, and unless there's a very good reason for capping an item, WP:CAP says, then assume it should be lower case. There's widespread abuse of capitalisation in a number of fields, including business and management, architecture, and IT. It's a slippery slope, and many house styles, including our own, say lower case is the default. Tony (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::I agree that there is no internal consistency, and WP:CAPS is widely ignored. Might it be worth opening an RFC on whether the guideline could be improved and clarified? --GW… 07:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the {{tl|prod}} tag from NASA Astronaut Group 21, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{tl|prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

:Specifically, I declined it per WP:POTENTIAL. While there is little available now, the article is clearly notable and I believe that should be left as a stub article. Even as a stub it should serve a useful purpose. Safiel (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please join the discussion of your proposed merge at Talk:Apollo-Soyuz Test Project#Proposed merge of Crews of Apollo–Soyuz Test Project. User:Soerfm has been making a lot of radical changes to several space articles without discussion or consensus. I think some of what he does (e.g. Project Mercury and Project Gemini, which weren't in perfect shape to begin with) is fairly good, but his work generally needs a lot of cleanup and I don't think adds value to the Apollo-and-later articles. I don't think your merge should be necessary (he just split the info out of the page to begin with.) Thank you. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

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) 16:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

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) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

|}

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

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) 05:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

:Are you ever going to archive this? --GW… 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 15|Category:Comet/Asteroid missions|ts=22:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)}}

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

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) 14:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

{{tb|Template talk:Editnotices/Page/User:GW Simulations/Todo}}

-- Jab7842 (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

|}

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. 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 in the [http://wikipedia.grouplens.org/SuggestBot/consent-info-en.html consent information sheet].

We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low File:Gnome-stock person.svg to High File:Icon of three people in different shades of grey.svg, while for quality the scale goes from Low File:Stars310.svg to High File:Stars330.svg.

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) 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Tsikada. I have just posted a message on the talk page. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry|Project abolishment?|ts=09:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)}}

SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Replied. --W. D. Graham _{(previously GW)} 11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 1980 in spaceflight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raduga (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) 11:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry|Project abolishment?|ts=13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)}}

SalopianJames - previously Colds7ream (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

|}

{{tmbox

|style = notice

|small =

|image = Image:Updated DYK query.svg

|text = On 29 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meridian 5, which you created or substantially expanded. {{#if: |The nomination discussion and review may be seen at .|{{#ifexist:Template:Did you know nominations/Meridian 5|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meridian 5.|{{#ifexist:Template talk:Did you know/Meridian 5|The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template talk:Did you know/Meridian 5.}} }} }}You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, [http://stats.grok.se/en/201112/Meridian_5 quick check]) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

}} Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited SES Astra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Headend (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) 10:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Satbuff|Astra|ts = 10:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)}}

{{Talkback|Satbuff|Astra|ts = 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)}}