Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#rfc A45B986

On November 15, 2026, 17 months from now, Voyager 1 will be 1 light-day away from Earth. I think it would make a great project to get it up to FA standard by then ({{u|Benison}} made one attempt a few years ago) so it could be WP:TFA on that day. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:RoySmith, I can ask for nothing else more than that. I'm busy irl till at least September, but I'll gladly drop by time to time for anything to make that happen. It's been a dream to get Voyager 1 to FA and hopefully, with some help, we can do it. Thanks. — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I thought it was standard that people's first spaceflights are listed as "First spaceflight", not "Only spaceflight", but apparently several editors on Fram2 disagree. Am I taking crazy pills? Asamboi (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't have a strong view on how we should have it, but I've taken "First spaceflight" to indicate that the astronaut flew again and "Only spaceflight" to mean he didn't. Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I believe it's more practical to list a flight as an astronaut's only flight (so far)—until a second is confirmed—rather than label every one as their first by default. Updating the record from only to first when a second flight is announced is straightforward and logically timed. In contrast, assuming future missions that may never happen leads to outdated entries, especially if the astronaut quietly retires or passes away. This issue is growing with the rise of private spaceflight—missions like Fram2, New Shepard, and Virgin Galactic—where many participants will never fly again and many not receive significant posthumous coverage. It's worth addressing now, as the trend accelerates. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I genuinely don't understand why? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we cannot confidently state that it's somebody's "only" spaceflight until after they have died, and it's misleading to label them as such if the person is still alive. This is particularly absurd for somebody like Axiom Mission 4's Shubhanshu Shukla who is virtually guaranteed to fly again.

::"First", on the other hand, is and will always be correct, and it's logically consistent with second, third, etc. Asamboi (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There's a key difference between speculating that someone will fly again (per WP:CRYSTAL) and simply stating the present reality: if a person has flown once, and only once, calling it their "only spaceflight" is factually accurate. It doesn’t preclude future missions, it just reflects what’s currently verifiable, which is especially helpful for readers unfamiliar with the person’s background.

:::Some may worry that labeling a flight as "only" implies a second flight will never happen, but I'd argue the reverse is more problematic. Calling every first flight a "first spaceflight" subtly suggests that a second flight is expected, which often isn’t the case, especially for space tourists or spaceflight participants. In that sense, "only" is the more neutral and accurate default unless there’s reliable sourcing for future missions.

:::Perhaps there’s room for a compromise: use "first" for professional astronauts with clear potential for future flights (like Shukla), and "only" for the rest. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Why are we inventing problems where none exist? First time in space = first spaceflight, this applies to everybody, is accurate, stays accurate and never needs updating. Asamboi (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::What do we do about living Apollo astronauts, say Schmitt, who flew once, likely will never fly again, but who knows what they will do? WP:CRYSTAL is hard here. Perhaps it is best to use First rather than Only for them too. Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's exactly what I'm suggesting: always use First for everybody, professional or tourist, living or dead. Asamboi (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree. "First" is unambiguous, and completely avoids WP:CRYSTAL issues. Regardless of if they ever, or never, flew again, it was, and is, still their first spaceflight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1753909270}}

{{rfc|style|rfcid=A45B986}}

Should articles about spaceflight missions (e.g., launches and landings) present UTC first and local time in parentheses, or local time first and UTC in parentheses? The current WikiProject Spaceflight style guide recommends listing UTC first as space is not within any Earth-bound time zone, while some editors argue this contradicts MOS:TIMEZONE, which prioritizes local time where an event took place.

The goal of this RfC is to determine whether spaceflight articles should make an exception to MOS:TIMEZONE (if such a exception is needed) by standardizing on UTC first formatting, given the global and technical nature of these events.

Examples of formatting options:

• UTC first and local time in parentheses: June 4, 2022, 13:25:02 UTC (9:25:02 am EDT)
• Local time first and UTC in parentheses: June 4, 2022, 9:25:02 am EDT (13:25:02 UTC)

Please share your thoughts and rationale below. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• UTC first – I support listing UTC first, followed by local time in parentheses. This reflects how most spaceflight articles have been written (e.g., Apollo, Soyuz and many Space Shuttle missions), and matches operational practice (UTC is the standard used by launch operators and regulators). While MOS:TIMEZONE prioritizes local time for Earth-based events, spaceflight is unique in that they transition quickly into a non-Earthbound context, and often involve multiple locations and time zones (e.g., launching in the Eastern time zone and landing in the Pacific). Listing UTC first avoids regional bias and supports consistency across articles. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• UTC First - Spaceflight is a subset of aviation and all aviation industry is handled in UTC. Even the launches, while they may be in a particular timezone, are conducted in UTC. Local timezone actually has no relevance for spacecraft. For spacecraft, they may have a launch point but they're out of that timezone almost immediately so using universal time makes much more sense than local time. A single unified means of reading spaceflight articles works best in my view. Canterbury Tail talk 20:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Local first (for launches and landings) – Launches and landings are events that take place in a time zone on Earth, and MOS:TIMEZONE gives "priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_10#Times_and_dates Previous editors] have suggested using local time for Earth-based events (e.g., launches and landings) and UTC for events in space, which is aligned with the MoS. The most consistent approach is to prioritize where the event took place with the local time zone and add UTC for dates and times in the infobox and/or first use in the article (i.e., spacewalks, docking/berthing, or a table of the timeline remain in UTC).

:The Manual of Style has precedence, and "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." RickyCourtney, this discussion is covers a more general application of the MoS and would be a better fit at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style per MOS:VAR.

:Launch operators/regulators often use (or prioritize) the local time zone in communications. Examples: [https://newsroom.arianespace.com/flight-va263-now-scheduled-on-march-3-2025?lang=eng Arianespace], [https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-shepard-ns-31-mission Blue Origin], [https://en.cmse.gov.cn/missions/shenzhou20/ CMSA], [https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/domesticnotices/dom25014_sp.html FAA], [https://www.glavkosmos.com/en/glavkosmos-organized-the-launch-of-18-small-spacecraft-from-the-vostochny-cosmodrome/ Glavkosmos/ROSCOSMOS], [https://www.isro.gov.in/Mission_PSLV_C61_EOS_09.html ISRO], [https://global.jaxa.jp/press/2025/02/20250228-1_e.html JAXA], [https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-to-welcome-fourth-private-astronaut-mission-to-space-station/ NASA], [https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-8 SpaceX], [https://www.ulalaunch.com/missions/next-launch/atlas-v-kuiper-2 ULA], [https://www.vandenberg.spaceforce.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3738402/ussf-62-mission-launches-from-vandenberg/ USSF]

:Aviation articles about a flight that spans multiple time zones use (or prioritize) the local time zone. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

:Redraiderengineer (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::We already discussed this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, as you suggested in a previous discussion. At the MOS talk page, there was support for listing UTC first, and that the WikiProject Spaceflight style guidance was not seen as conflicting with the MOS. You then recommended starting an RfC as the next step, which I followed, choosing this venue as it seemed appropriate. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Have everyone who participated in the prior discussion been notified? Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:* UTC first spacecraft launches and landings are not stand-alone events. They are part of a mission, where times are primarily given in UTC because many timezones are crossed or no particular timezone is relevant. Hence it's only consistent to state UTC first on all spaceflight events, including launches and landings.

:Joe vom Titan (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a content dispute at Talk:Shubhanshu Shukla#Seat about whether or not the alleged cost of a seat in Axiom Mission 4 merit inclusion in the astronaut's article, considering that no other article on an astronaut (including past occupants of private spaceflights) appear to have any mention of the cost of seat/mission in their respective articles. Members of this WikiProject are welcome to voice their opinions at the relevant disputed section. Thank you! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well if it's an "alleged" cost, the it definitely shouldn't be in as it seems there isn't a reliable source for the actual number paid (by whomever.) We're an encyclopaedia not a gossip column. And I don't think we include prices paid for anything else that someone has across the project (their homes, education etc etc.), again we're an encyclopaedia not an accountancy firm. Canterbury Tail talk 19:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:1) What User:Canterbury Tail said above.
2) Based on the general rule of notability, I'd ask: does it matter? Is the price really important? Would it matter much to readers in five or twenty years from now? --CiaPan (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't. Completely agree with @Canterbury Tail and @CiaPan.

It doesn't matter at all. Neither similar other private mission/astronaut pages have included such information in their wikipage. Also, here the source is based on a POV of a person who is speculating the number and does not have official govt/agency confirmation regarding the price pay act nor the actual price.(Even the publisher confirms that it's not official).

All in all, we cant put speculative statements in Wikipedia.

Editking100 (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, it's not like there aren't speculative statements on Wikipedia. But in the article in question, I tended to agree that based on present information the alleged price should not be included. But if it was known with certainty, from official sources or from a highly reliable secondary source like a major news agency stating it without equivocation, it might be worth including. It would depend on the situation and I prefer not to judge in advance.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)