Main page   Discussion   Members   Assessment   Open tasks Popular pages   Recognized content     Awards   Portal

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Spaceflight and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:SPACEFLIGHT

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 31 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Spaceflight This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight

WikiProject Spaceflight
General information
Established (2006-09-25) 25 September 2006 (age 18) Articles under scope 9545 out of 6,943,412 articles.
Sub-projects
Active Adopt an astronaut Timeline of spaceflight
Inactive Aerospace biography ESA SpaceX Wikipedia:Constellation program
Defunct Human spaceflight Space Colonization Unmanned spaceflight
Matters of interest
Grading scheme Assessment Log Quality Featured topics Recognized content
Statistics Open tasks New articles Popular pages
Others 2007 reorganisation 2010 reorganisation Spaceflight portal
Resources
Advice Article titles Launch articles Style guide
Templates Tab headers Generic The Downlink Timeline of spaceflight Template list Template index
Newsletter (The Downlink)
Discussion Issues Mailing list
User
Awards Mailing list Members Userboxes
v t e

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-02-04 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Engineering § Aeronautical/Aerospace See Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport § Rockets and spacecraft Assess : See Category:Unassessed spaceflight articles Infobox : See Category:Spaceflight articles needing infoboxes Stubs : See Category:Outer space stubs Update : 2020s in spaceflight

Hi! I have recently opened up a discussion on the date format of the article for Kalpana Chawla. You can find it on the Talk page. Would like to see people's perspectives on it. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leonid Kadeniuk#Page move due to misspelled name that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, all - anyone know if the Project Spaceflight discord is still active? Seems like at least the link on the main project page has been deprecated. Feels like it should be either be refreshed with a new link if it is still active or removed if the discord no longer exists! :) XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did some digging - the WP:Spaceflight thing is a subgroup inside the main Wikimedia Commons discord, but for whatever reason, that link has expired on the main page. I'll see if I can update it! XFalcon2004x (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Works/Fiction_by_setting_(space). TL;DR if you can think of articles about non-fiction Category:Works set on Mars, it would be good to save it from deletion. Ditto for Category:Works set on the Moon (should be easier). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking across articles that pertain to American space projects and vehicles, there is an extremely mixed bag when it comes to the date template that has been applied. Many articles have the "Use dmy dates" template, and yet MOS:DATETIES states that articles with strong national ties should match the date system of those nations. MOS:DATERET also makes it clear that it is superseded by DATETIES. This makes sense as the purpose of DATERET was to settle arguments over articles where the proper date system to use was not otherwise clear. To quote the policies (bold mine):

MOS:DATETIES:

In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format ...

is controlled by WP:DATERET;

is unrelated to the topic's ties to particular countries; and

is independent of, and unrelated to, the national variety of English used in the article.

MOS:DATERET:

Retaining existing format

If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country.

I see no reason why space articles should be an exception to the MOS, so can we mass-change the U.S.-centered articles to the "Use mdy dates" template? --Iritscen (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant point I know of is:

However, in certain topic areas, it is customary to use a date format different from the usual national one. For example, articles (including biographical articles) on the modern US military should use DMY dates, in accordance with US military usage.

NASA and spaceflight have strong ties to the military, and many cases of engineering use SI units and dmy dates. I see the argument from both sides, but I feel that's relevant enough to avoid changing a majority of the articles from dmy. Alpacaaviator (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASA may use dmy internally (I don't know if they do), but all public-facing material from NASA such as press releases are written in mdy. Since we're writing an encyclopedia it seems like we should follow the agency's public style rather than guessing at or mimicking their internal format.

In any event, the current situation is weirdly inconsistent to the point that it's basically random, e.g. Artemis I is mdy and Artemis II is dmy. --Iritscen (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASA style guide calls for dmy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an internal document. From the intro: "The purpose of style guidelines is to achieve consistency in prose style and usage so that readers can become absorbed in the content and avoid being distracted by curiosities in form." That means it's for people writing at NASA so that the documents they produce are consistent. A couple more quotes to make that clear: "You will be the first researcher to look at many of the NASA records." "Each NASA history publication must have an index." I'm not even sure which documents it's been used for, as NASA's press releases use mdy, as shown at my previous link. --Iritscen (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the style guide that Hawkeye7 posted is relevant.

Some more specifics about military involvement in spaceflight:

• many early launch vehicles were ICBM-derived. The Titan family notably was operated by the USAF.
• many NASA astronauts are serving military members or veterans
• SpaceX, who conduct a vast majority of American launches (and a significant percentage of global launches), uses launch pads leased from the US Space Force (formerly USAF) for many of their launches.
• The military is a regular customer of orbital launches. ULA wouldn't exist without military EELV/NSSL launches.

Again, I see the argument for consistency and am not pressing to change everything to dmy, but when there is a gray area or lack of consensus, policy tends to be to not make major changes. Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The strange thing is that we wouldn't be having this debate at all if Wikipedia handled dates sanely. Why do we even need to choose which format to write dates in? That should be left up to the locale setting of someone's browser.

Fwiw, it is actually possible to do something along those lines with the magic word #dateformat. For instance {{#dateformat:2022-02-22}} produces "2022-02-22", which appears as mdy for me but should appear as dmy for you if that's how your Wikipedia user prefs are set. --Iritscen (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note though, that for a user who is not logged in, that will display as "2022-02-22". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]