 Archives | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot I. |
A dispute[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackzhp#September_2020
- User:WhoKnows (talk) 22:28, 31 September 2021 (UTC)
WikiProject SpaceX[edit]
Hi. Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject SpaceX? If you are please add support on it proposal page. @N2e:
Your deletion of my input on private spaceflight[edit]
Hi there, I've seen you deleted all my edits to the private spaceflight pace. What a pity, it took me hours to solve all the issues in the introduction and to move the outdated information into the history chapter of the article. The article contains a lot of biased, wrong and misleading information and was marked as problematic already several times by various users. The talk page you referred to was used by myself and others to discuss the issues but nobody took all. Leaving the page as is to preserve all the historical information that is outdated, and often even uncited, is damaging to this emerging industry and everyone working in it. The article lacks scope, clarity, objectivity, up to date information and it is a history lesson more than anything else, from the perspective of someone who wrote this in 2013. If you can do it better than me please go ahead but leaving the page as is is really not the way to go and I fundamentally disagree with your attitude here. Ld4795 (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "attitude" here. That article needs improvement. But since Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, I don't think we should be deleting so much (sourced and cited) information about the historical arc of the whole "private spaceflight" thing, just 'cause certain info is "outdated." Rather, the historical info should stay, but perhaps be copyedited to reflect the (now, historical) time context. But we cannot simply delete old info 'cause it is old; that is not the Wikipedia encyclopedia. That's what newspapers do.
- I would be happy to collaborate with you Ld4795 to improve the article, but deleting the historical bits is not the way to go. N2e (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
If you took time to actually read my changes carefully you would see that the parts that I deleted were either moved to and summarized adequately in the historical chapter, which is where they belong, or were deleted because the information was mentioned repeatedly at several times throughout the article thereby not adding any additional value. Go have a look. I'm happy to explain it to you line by line in a commented word document if necessary. Ld4795 (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
For example here,
"In the early decades of the Space Age, the government space agencies of the Soviet Union and United States pioneered space technology in collaboration with affiliated design bureaus in the USSR and private companies in the US, entirely funding both the development of new spaceflight technologies and the operational costs of spaceflight. The European Space Agency was formed in 1975, largely following the same model of space technology development.",
This entire passage is sourced with a 10-line long article about cislunar missions which has nothing to do with anything that was said in the paragraph at all. The first sentence is a high school level introduction to spaceflight in general terms with is much better explained in the article on the history of spaceflight, and has also nothing to do with private spaceflight. Contracting regular companies to deliver hardware to the government is not private spaceflight especially not by the definition that the author provided in the first sentence of the article. The fact that esa was founded in 1975 is also not relevant at all and covered on the esa page. Nothing in this paragraph is new to Wikipedia, relevant to the topic, or cited adequately, it adds no value to the page. I replaced this section with a paragraph that explains that most of what we call spaceflight is still government funded today, and therefore actually cannot be considered private spaceflight, and I provided adequate sources for this to reflect recent discourse.
For anyone who's interested in the "early decades of the space age", there's the page for https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_spaceflight which explains this in great detail. Ld4795 (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This section,
"Later on, large defense contractors began to develop and operate space launch systems, derived from government rockets. Private spaceflight in Earth orbit includes communications satellites, satellite television, satellite radio, astronaut transport and sub-orbital and orbital space tourism. In the United States, the FAA has created a new certification called Commercial Astronaut, a new occupation.[1]"
has similar issues. Companies were contracted by space agencies to build rockets, which again is not private spaceflight by the definition provided, and the use cases mentioned here come without any references, or concrete examples, or links to relevant Wikipedia pages at all. It's also falling short of actual private spaceflight examples such as commercial lunar missions. I've taken the bit of information here that can be considered relevant and provided an easy to understand list of examples, adding missing pieces to it as well as links, and proper sources. I really cannot believe you removed all of that.
The fact that NASA has a definition for commercial astronauts is not put in the context to this topic and simply links to the Wikipedia page on commercial astronauts. If you want that random piece of information to stay in the introduction we can leave it there but it's useless in my opinion; it makes much more sense to mention space tourism in general as use case and then link to the page for more information. Ld4795 (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
This part, .In the 2000s, entrepreneurs began designing—and by the 2010s, deploying—space systems competitive to the governmental systems[2][3] of the early decades of the space age.[4][5]:7 These new offerings have brought about significant market competition in space launch services after 2010 that had not been present previously, principally through the reduction of the cost of space launch and the availability of more space launch capacity.[6],
is simply wrong. First of all, what is a "space system competitive to government systems of early decades of spaceflight"? What is meant here? What's a space system, what's a government system, what changed, where are the examples. The references lead to articles about space x which are not put in context of what is said here, and which also do not support the statement. SpaceX in fact received massive funding from NASA and is not in competition with the "government system" which is an undefined and vague term. Space X has so far mostly earned revenue from contracts with NASA, which again, looking at the definition provided here, is not private spaceflight. The author is messing up private companies in the space industry with private spaceflight which is not the same thing! If anything, one could discuss if they are replacing the "government system", but if so, this should be understood to happen at the explicit wish of the government which issued commercial policies to make this happen, and not in competition. Then the author drifts into competitiveness of the launcher industry, and connects it to the reduced cost launches and increased deliver capacity, thereby suggesting the wrong chain of events and flipping causality. It is not lower prices that led to competition, it's competition that led to lower prices which is standard economic theory. The article cited also doesn't confirm any of this, it says that a revolution is needed in space transport and that prices need to go down to enable new business cases which is correct but wasn't written here in this article. In fact there's not even any reference or evidence next to the claim that costs were reduced and capacity increased. NASA wanted their space shuttle back and not buy seats for Soyuz from the Russians anymore which is why they've contracted spx and Boeing to develop new crew vehicles. There is no evidence that these are cheaper or provide more capacity. And since all of this is government funded it doesn't even account as private spaceflight and isn't a discussion that should happen on this page. It needs to be on the "commercialisation page" which is also a mess by the way. Ld4795 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Ld4795. I really want to engage with you on improving that article, and getting many of your changes in. I was hoping I would have time to find an hour today, but that did not occur. I'm headed out on a trip for a few days, and won't be back until mid next week. I think we can hash out our differences, which as you note, in some cases could be a misunderstanding of how much some other part of the article may, or may not, cover the rather large sourced bits of history that were removed. But there is a lot of detail to go through, and will probably be best if we just take it a bit at a time. I do know that a number of your changes were fine ... I was just unable to get the larger historical parts dealt with without reverting a larger set of your edits.
- Want to try to connect for a bit of discussion and editing next week, perhaps some US evening time? (although I could also probably do other times as well) I'm on a Western US time zone in the later part of next week, so might be able to find a time to have the discussion in a bit more real time way. N2e (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi N2e, I would appreciate if you would read all my inputs in detail and review my changes again, in which case you would find out that I didn't remove anything, I moved it to the history chapter. I would also like to understand what gives you the right to decide that the old edit is of more value than my changes given the amount of major issues that are present in the current article - from wrong information to opinionated interpretations, this article should at least be taken OFFLINE entirely until it is revised. Ld4795 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
--
Well, I see a point about reverting Deep Blue Aerospace. They did not launch anything, and on the bottom of their website they link to the competition, which companies usually would strongly avoid to do. However, a revert with no explanation in the "edit summary" doesn't feel like you respect my work. In addition, your revert re-activates an inappropriate redirect, which also requires some explanation, doesn't it? So, maybe that page should be deleted entirely until that company actually launches its first device. Anyway, let's do good work, and in style. Elanduriar (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, after further checking, they may have launched their first test vehicles called "Nebula M1". So, they clearly do something. And then also, I see that the redirect goes to a sub-headline of "Expected maiden flights", so that also sounds o.k. Still, that redirect is not something that a reader of Wikipedia wants. Too complicated, takes hours, literally in my case, to understand what the editor actually wanted to hint by that redirect. And also still, I prefer to read some edit summary if somebody reverts my work. Thanks. Elanduriar (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for Deletion[edit]
Proposed deletion of Infrastructure policy of the Joe Biden administration[edit]
The article Infrastructure policy of the Joe Biden administration has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Entirety of contents are already included in Build Back Better Plan and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, while this article includes around a thousand views per month average against multiple thousand on the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs act article and tens of thousands of views on Build Back Better Plan
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bill Williams 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- That page should def be deleted, if a consensus forms around that. It seems to have been created as a puff piece during the election campaign of Biden during 2020; and was very badly out of date during nearly all of 2021 as the actual substantive legislation proposed by the Biden Administration with a rather massive cost (>US$1 trillion) as no editors seemed to want to edit it any longer. So, yeah, AfD it into the dustbin of Wikipedia article history. N2e (talk) 12:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
A beer for you![edit]
|
Or use it as rocket fuel instead! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC) |
George C. Nield redirect[edit]
Hi, I nominated that redirect for deletion (or article creation, ideally). At the moment the redirect leads to an article not mentioning him: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#George C. Nield. --mfb (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Article massive open online course title[edit]
Hi, You have done a great job in the article massive open online course. Would you come to discuss the title of the article? :)
Link to discussion: Talk:Massive_open_online_course#Requested_move_5_April_2022 --Avoinlähde (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)