![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The article can be improved by showing the interior of each of the Pressurized modules, it shows the outside of each one, which is good for construction, but could be improved to engage the readers more than it does at the moment.
The existing Pressurized module table could be modified slightly, to include one extra thumb per module, with an image selected to describe the interior of that module, or highlight it's best features. Although, some modules are much more interesting than others. Dawn and the MPLM's are not as interesting as the robot arm control boards, docking control panels, guidance and propulsion control and so forth, so they might do well if there was an extra section with thumbs for each of these items.
These new ideas are especially attractive to me because they will write themselves, unlike my efforts in the costs section, which is a painful mess, it was a mess before, and I've made the mess bigger now with no hope of fixing it myself, and it's not an attractive target for editors. Finding the good photos and writing descriptions relies primarily on agreeing and creating a structure for the section, as editors who enjoy photos are in no short supply. Seriously, who doesn't want to see the bridge of a space station ? Who doesn't want to see the buttons for the robots and imagine pressing them. This is a winner right here.
Am I missing anything ? Is there an article out there called ISS gallery I don't know about because it has no proper linking to this article ? These things happen. I ran into this the other day. If it doesn't exist, can someone help me make it for overflow from here ? Although the NASA photos don't seem as high a quality as some of the more elusive prey, they are certainly abundant enough and easily included. I think after one or two pics are popped in here, everyone will get this idea, I have some in mind. Penyulap talk 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A student speaks to crew on the International Space Station using Amateur Radio equipment, provided free by volunteers of the ARISS program. The description has been shortened from this, to what is seen at the right, and the picture is as small as it can be without disrupting the description too much.
I've had it released and uploaded as education is a very significant purpose of the ISS, and there are no pictures except sightings pictures, I figure this one helps illustrate the ISS in it's role in Education. Support, objections anyone ? Penyulap talk 21:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that we have gorgeous pictures of the ISS with Endeavor docked to it, I have made this drawing based on those pictures that show a real view of what is actually on the space station. It is fairly complete, only the truss details are missing. Where could we put this? TheAnarcat ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The picture on the left by Raplh Vandeberg, also mentioned on this page
here has support, but I want to bring attention to the 'astrophotography' mentioned, for expert opinion, from experts in that field.
I've raised questions about it's technical definition as opposed to it's common useage, to see if it's a misnomer, on the astronomy, astronomical object, and astrophotography talk pages. However, it only has a passing mention, and I feel it's best to leave it with it's common useage until it's discussed properly on those appropriate pages. The discussion should go there, not here, and if it ever gets expert opinion referenced and updating of those pages, I'll update it here. Penyulap talk 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is a general picture I would dearly love to see included on the page, however I haven't yet asked about it's release into the public domain, for anyone who wishes to do so, wikipedia has a 'embassy' forum/talkpage thingy with multilingual editors who will assist you, so you don't need to butcher their language using google translate as I often do, lolz. (but remember, do your homework yourself, don't ask other people to help with the parts you can do if you try). RadioFan, would this be good for that computer section ?
Here is the link for LadsPawnMCbuttInCntrStrike.jpg from the page here it would be nice to open the door to this great source of images, there are great ones of the food and all sorts of things. Penyulap talk 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A similar probably can be found here.-- Craigboy ( talk) 05:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have asked here for the article to be included in WikiProject Japan, after I noticed a glaring omission, that this article isn't part of WikiProject Japan, I have also asked here regarding CSA's involement. Penyulap talk 00:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
This is Draft of a new lede section, please comment on any faults of errors you can see and say if you support it or not. Please do not copy and paste parts out of this into the current lede, upsetting the current prose. This Draft is written in a different prose to the current lede. This is the first paragraph only, other paragraphs will contain other facts and points not covered in this first paragraph.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite in Low Earth Orbit. The ISS is the the 11th space station launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations. The name Zarya meaning Dawn in Russian was given to the first module, launched in 1998, because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. The ISS program combines two space station projects, the Russian Space Agency MIR-II and NASA's Freedom, with Laboratory modules from the Japanese and European space agencies, and robotics provided by the Canadian space agency. These are the five major partners of the project. The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space and microgravity.
This is a sentence by sentence breakdown of the lede first paragraph explaining the choice of wording.
I'd like to put up more of the draft after RFC on this paragraph. Penyulap talk 09:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
please consider these ideas on the points you have raised
(reply to your helpful comments, and thank you !!!!)
(the whole context thing is going to get more interesting soon enough, with the 1st gen Chinese station being launched within the year of so, the Chinese are happy to co-operate with any other nation in manned spaceflight, so we'll have potentially two ISS's up there, I'm not mentioning it now, as it's not launched, but it will be manned pretty quick, and knowing the Chinese program and economy, they could zip backups off the production line in a flash.)
Penyulap talk 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, a point of view that didn't occur to me till just then, are you concerned about the use of the word successfully ? as in successfully launched, because your right there, it's not a good choice of word. People would argue until the end of time about skylabs launch. Is it better like this
Penyulap talk 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but what's wrong with the current lead paragraph? The proposed one doesn't really seem better in any way that I can see. The current lead seems clear, concise, neutral, well-written, informative, well-referenced.. it gets to the core of what's important quickly and efficiently. To me, it is what one should expect from an opening paragraph of a featured article. So could the proposer please clarify what problem it is they are trying to fix? Mlm42 ( talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, what reliable source states that the ISS is the 11th space station? Because if we don't have a source that says that, then it shouldn't be in the article (and definitely shouldn't be in the lead). Although the "Origins" section mentions the other stations, the intro doesn't link to any of them.. so if a change were to be made, the most natural place seems to be the insertion of a single sentence in the second paragraph. But I'm not sure what such a sentence should say.. perhaps Penyulap has a suggestion? Mlm42 ( talk) 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why this article has been nominated for Featured Article Review. The first step of FAR says
What exactly are the issues that need to be resolved? Can the nominator, Penyulap, please state in one or two sentences the main issues which are not resolved? I can't say I've read all of the text on this talk page due to its length.. so a very short summary of the main concerns would be nice. Mlm42 ( talk) 17:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The lead some other article should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It that other article should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.
I've taken your advice on everything possible, but I can't understand some of it, you suggest that perhaps I should close off a poll I opened, even though I'm specific not calling for change or asking for action, just to get a long term idea of what everyone thinks. But after just 13 hours your asking if perhaps it's better to close off all further discussion about it? I don't understand, you called for discussion of ENG:VAR in the edit summary hours before, and it wasn't even editing my work as far as I know, because I don't care, I'm thankful for help. I was only trying to ask questions.
You've said on my talkpage that I need to get consensus, but then you say you 'stepped in to try and stop the unproductive discussion.' after just 3 days and one constructive comment on the talkpage discussion I opened to ask for comment. I don't understand how you mean I should discuss proposed changes, this is confusing me.
You tell me I shouldn't edit the lead section without consensus, but I've already made what I consider to be a complete mess of the rest of the article. Huge sections of it are a disgrace to my eyes. People have been too kind about what is there, or I must be my biggest critic, but I don't think so,. But I spent the last 9 hours preparing the FAR, calling in the very best minds available from not just the wikiprojects that the ISS belongs to, but something like 15 or 16 of them, to help fix my disgraceful work. Look at the cost section, it's hideous. I did the best I could, but there is no reference at all anywhere at all for any of it. I didn't make any of it up I promise, but there are no references at all for it, only the first line, which i didn't write. I expected things as obvious as that to be struck down straight away, or any of the other sections I wrote to be destroyed every bit as fast as my drafts of the lead that you say are no good at all (and I agree they are no good, when GW pointed it out, I changed everything all over again). But I was shocked that when the best people I can find to fix the mess I made arrived they haven't destroyed everything at all, I don't understand why they are waiting.
All I can see are errors everywhere, and I listed lots of them, but you keep saying to me on the talkpage to tell you more of them, but I can't understand why you can't see them, and why other people can't see them either. They are so plain and so obvious. Someone has to fix them, at some point someone has to fix these problems and I am getting worried and upset because so far lots are picked up on by the experts, but lots are missed, LOTS.
CAN YOU PLEASE DRAFT A NEW LEAD FOR ME, or tell me who can draft a new lead. I can't understand why my work everywhere else isn't getting slashed to pieces like my lead drafts do. I know I say the lead has to be updated and fixed, but I ask you, who can we get to do this ? if it ever needs to be done, WHO ? I wish colds7ream was here, he could do it, he has made lots more contributions than I have, but he's been busy with exams for ages, and there are so many problems to fix.
Mlm42 please tell me who should draft a lead if at some point in the future it needs to be done. And when? how long should it wait?
Also, I'm not sure this is the right place for this discussion.. perhaps I should move it to my talk page. Mlm42 ( talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not finding this funny the ISS is possibly one of humanities most important stepping stones into colonizing other planets. Your stifling discussions here, you are asking me how to find references for other space stations ? you can't find any errors in the lead ? who are you, what is your agenda here how did you get into wikiproject spaceflight ? This is a serious article, this is important to millions of people, three thousand people a day look to us for facts. what is your agenda Penyulap talk 02:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
'The questions about errors in the lead are not a game, the question exposes you Mlm42 and Ckatz for what you are both doing to this article. I will not hide on talkpages. I have exposed what is going on here. I will continue to discuss problems that many other editors are having which are discouraging their honest contributions to this project. Penyulap talk 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Once that is dealt with every editor with something to offer will be welcome to do so, even you and Ckatz. There have been problems in the past, bad feelings in this discussion, and God help me I will root them out and find the cause, and make it so every person. EVERY person can feel welcome and comfortable here. Penyulap talk 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Penyulap talk 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Ckatz can you give me any advice on the ISS matters ? I seem to be asking you over and over without response, like two weeks ago, I asked you about the ISS, but you only respond within hours to matters like the ENG:VAR, should I stop asking you advice on ISS matters altogether ? I want your ideas, I seek your opinions on matters relating to the space station itself. Penyulap talk 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." By your own definition, the changes to the lead did not have consensus as they were reverted by at least two editors. --Ckatzchatspy 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." is not my own definition it is Wikipedia's own definition. Perhaps you don't recognize it. The original from the 'What consensus is' section of the Wikipedia:CONSENSUS article says the following... "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. "
How about this Kim, stuff discussing it, my discussions on the talkpage are 'unproductive'. So I've just gone ahead and fixed 4 Major errors in the lead that the wikiproject spaceflight member who admitted he can't find a single one, has been reading over and over again for weeks if not months. Now, would you please be kind and gentle, I mean you Kim, not the 'editors who provide me great amusement' please assist this new to the ISS article editor, by discussing if the parts inventory from STS-135 is actually quite as important as some american media outlet he has probably been the victim of is saying it is. Forget my edits, the first three will stand forever unreverted. The last will need someone capable of research. It's perfectly correct of course, but someone had challenged it before, and I just ignored it as a result (I think you might see, I'm not into this confrontation crap, throwing down 'challenges' in the edit summary like Mlm42 does.) So as I am slamming the door so to speak, colds7ream, or anyone else who reads will be needed for that. But that new inventory section won't last, and that is a good editor. Penyulap talk 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In reference to my recent edit: the first time I observed the ISS it started out as a little dot and then became a very bright reddish-orange "blob" (for lack of a better word). Mars colored. I assume this is because it was passing thru the earth's penumbra, appearing this color for the same reason total lunar eclipses appear orange or reddish-orange. However, what I don't know if this was because of special viewing circumstances, or is typical. Feedback is appreciated. I would revert, because I think I should have brought this up here before changing the article, but I'll leave that up to someone else for now. -- TimL ( talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I found these short nasa documentary clips which talk about different aspects of zhe ISS. I thought that at least a few could be used in some way here. I am slightly concerned about POV issues regarding a subset of these clips but still think they may prove useful. Thoughts? -- U5K0 ( talk) 17:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
does anyone knows the status of the proposed experiment described here ? http://registration.istdayton.com/Briefings/In-Space%20Laser%20Power%20Beaming%20Concept(HBCU%20forum).pdf seems to be mentioned since 2000 as laser broom-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The language variant used in this article is a topic that seems to have created tension between some editors in the past.
This poll is simply to investigate which demographic editors are wanting to write this article for.
Simply majority consensus / first past the post has been asked for before. It's in the archives. There are still many who are not happy with the article, leading to occasional calls for change, and extra work for editors. Personally I have no opinion on the Variant/dialect used, however, I do see that it is a possible source of ongoing tensions.
As significant time and effort is put into the discussion of language used in this article, I'd like to contribute to a reduction in this workload in a constructive way. Rather than have another drive to address these concerns in the same way, and to avoid creating workload for people outside the ISS editors, I'll open a long-term poll.
At some point when there are enough responses to warrant, I'll tally the results using the Ranked Pairs system, which after a study of systems that might apply best to a talkpage/article which has fallen into this situation, is the best I can find. (without asking the higher-ups for help, I'm assuming here we can all be mature enough to find some common ground ourselves).
Now and then, I'll tally the results again if someone asks, or there have been a good few more. If I leave in a few years, someone else is welcome to do so.
If this problem is alleviated by the creation of separate Wikipedias for EN-GB and EN-American and EN-INT Wikipedia, please don't use this poll's results on those new article pages. (If separate wikis were created, I'd for one be happy to contribute to all 3, I already actually contribute on foreign wikis regularly where I can't speak a single word of the language, it's all good).
As for my vote, as I've said I have no opinion, but will abstain anyhow, I'd rather offer impartial assistance to discover and repair the cause of the discontent, and I understand there may well be people who wouldn't want it fixed, but would rather things continue as they are.
As a footnote, I'd like everyone to consider the alt descriptions for images, which are for the blind. At the moment, I haven't been able to keep up with these on the new images for this article. Penyulap talk 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(cur | prev) 00:09, 28 June 2011 Mlm42 (talk | contribs) (172,559 bytes) (program -> programme. Article is written in British English; to challenge this, use the talk page) (undo)
(cur | prev) 07:52, 28 June 2011 Penyulap (talk | contribs) (141,258 bytes) (→ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English.: new section) (undo)
I move to close this discussion, unless someone actually expresses a desire to change from the British English system which has been established on this article for quite a while. Mlm42 ( talk) 01:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
At first, I just couldn't resist putting quotation marks around this one,
but then I realize it's pure Gold !! "Nobody here has objected to British English." Penyulap talk 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
ISS article should use American English. It's mostly an American project, there is no British module, Australian module, NZ module, Irish module etc; as Europe/ESA isn't Britain, Britain's contribution is less than one module. The Canadian contribution is one module, an Arm. The only other country aside from the US with many components is Russia, which isn't an English-speaking locality. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 07:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster, since more than $100 billion of the $160 billion cost comes from the US, it is primarily a US project. The UK has a policy against human spaceflight and is not a partner member of the ESA in the ISS, so it makes little sense to use the UK spellings in this article, since there is no support for the project from that country. The reason posted for why this is, is that the article originally was written in UK English, and despite urgings from various members of the Wikipedia community to bring the language used to better reflect the national origins of the subject mater the language has not been updated. This is espeically jarring, since most of the primary sources for the article are NASA websites, which, of course, use US English. The current state of the article goes against Wikipedia policy (the equivalent would be if the Oscar Wilde article used US English, despite it's subject having a UK origin). 72.207.232.42 ( talk) 03:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of people have been talking about ISS as a diplomatic factor lately. I looked it up and have found that it seems to stem from the Obama National Space Policy and subsequent NASA and administration documents. The relevant part of the National Space Policy says the following:
Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond, and expand efforts to: utilize the ISS for scientific, technological, commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes; support activities requiring the unique attributes of humans in space; serve as a continuous human presence in Earth orbit; and support future objectives in human space exploration;
Should this be included in the purpose section even though it's a later addition to the purpose of Station? If so, in what way should it be added? -- U5K0 ( talk) 01:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
In the 2010 US National Space Policy, the ISS was given additional roles of serving commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes. [1]
This article was promoted only 18 months ago but it is currently at the top of the featured article clean up listing. Using the Featured article criteria as a guide I see multiple problems with the article as it currently stands:
This notice is following the proper procedure of featured article review by first posting a list of issues on the talk page of the article before actually starting the review. If these issues cannot be resolved in a reasonable amount of time (30-45 days) then a review will be initiated. The FA criteria not mentioned here were not checked so the possibility of other issues exist. Brad ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
My apologies to all concerned for my newbie use of eng:var:spiderman. Here is my own wp:gibberish translation, apologies my language skills are still not up to scratch.
I will be glad to assist anyone for the reasons listed here. If this is a problem, or anyone doesn't want me to help other editors, feel free to let me know. Penyulap talk 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this picture of the 2006 solar eclipse from the ISS. I was thinking of putting into the purpuse section. Comments?
U5K0'sTalkMake
WikiLove not
WikiWar
14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Should we include a subsection to Life on board? There's this document detailing what's available as of 2008. I also recall Steven Swanson including Serenity and Firefly to the library.-- DrWho42 ( talk) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone - just to let you all know that I'm far too busy with final year medicine to be editing anytime soon, so crack on with whatever edits you like; I won't have a go, and frankly, if a bunch of us couldn't keep the article up to scratch for a measly 18 months, I can't really be bothered anyway. Colds7ream ( talk) 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Where are we going with updating this article ? it's OLD. Will anyone update the launch table and corresponding parts of the lead at the very least ? I read through it a week or two ago, and there are ten problems I counted in the first two paragraphs alone. Is anyone willing to discuss this ? I personally still won't bother fixing this crap for a while longer, or until Colds7ream wants to state his intentions. For anyone who wants to get some practice updating an article like this, with no guarantee it won't simply be rolled back to the smelly 2 y.o. state, here is some 'things to do' ideas.
I think the current section titled Module Launch Schedule shuld be placed directly after Pressurised modules just like Cancelled modules. Putting it in the same section as docked spacecraft makes very little sence to me. We're talking about modules, not spply or crew transport spacecraft. I think it should be moved in the way outlined. Any objections? -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the more I look at this, the more I believe that the entire structure of the article needs a reorganisation. Here's my proposal:
1 Purpose 2 Origin 3 Station structure 3.1 Assembly 3.2 Pressurised modules 3.2.1 Module Launch Schedule 3.3 Unpressurised elements (add a short summary of the structural elements moved out of the structure section) 3.4 Cancelled modules and components 4 Station systems 4.1 Life support 4.2 Power supply 4.3 Thermal Control System 4.4 Communications & computers 4.5 Robotic arms 5 Station operations 5.1 Orbit control 5.1.1 Sightings 5.2 Life on board (New section - Research activity) 5.2.1 Microgravity 5.3 Expeditions 5.4 Docking 5.4.1 Currently docked 5.4.2 Docking schedule 5.5 Mission control centres 6 Safety aspects 6.1 Space environment 6.1.1 Orbital debris 6.2 Maintainence (rename ro Repairs) 7 Politics 7.1 Criticism 7.2 Legal aspects 7.3 Cost 7.4 End of mission and deorbit 8 References 9 External links
We could also rephrase one or more of the section/subsection titles if apropriate. Thoughts, criticism, praise? -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
The article can be improved by showing the interior of each of the Pressurized modules, it shows the outside of each one, which is good for construction, but could be improved to engage the readers more than it does at the moment.
The existing Pressurized module table could be modified slightly, to include one extra thumb per module, with an image selected to describe the interior of that module, or highlight it's best features. Although, some modules are much more interesting than others. Dawn and the MPLM's are not as interesting as the robot arm control boards, docking control panels, guidance and propulsion control and so forth, so they might do well if there was an extra section with thumbs for each of these items.
These new ideas are especially attractive to me because they will write themselves, unlike my efforts in the costs section, which is a painful mess, it was a mess before, and I've made the mess bigger now with no hope of fixing it myself, and it's not an attractive target for editors. Finding the good photos and writing descriptions relies primarily on agreeing and creating a structure for the section, as editors who enjoy photos are in no short supply. Seriously, who doesn't want to see the bridge of a space station ? Who doesn't want to see the buttons for the robots and imagine pressing them. This is a winner right here.
Am I missing anything ? Is there an article out there called ISS gallery I don't know about because it has no proper linking to this article ? These things happen. I ran into this the other day. If it doesn't exist, can someone help me make it for overflow from here ? Although the NASA photos don't seem as high a quality as some of the more elusive prey, they are certainly abundant enough and easily included. I think after one or two pics are popped in here, everyone will get this idea, I have some in mind. Penyulap talk 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
A student speaks to crew on the International Space Station using Amateur Radio equipment, provided free by volunteers of the ARISS program. The description has been shortened from this, to what is seen at the right, and the picture is as small as it can be without disrupting the description too much.
I've had it released and uploaded as education is a very significant purpose of the ISS, and there are no pictures except sightings pictures, I figure this one helps illustrate the ISS in it's role in Education. Support, objections anyone ? Penyulap talk 21:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Now that we have gorgeous pictures of the ISS with Endeavor docked to it, I have made this drawing based on those pictures that show a real view of what is actually on the space station. It is fairly complete, only the truss details are missing. Where could we put this? TheAnarcat ( talk) 07:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The picture on the left by Raplh Vandeberg, also mentioned on this page
here has support, but I want to bring attention to the 'astrophotography' mentioned, for expert opinion, from experts in that field.
I've raised questions about it's technical definition as opposed to it's common useage, to see if it's a misnomer, on the astronomy, astronomical object, and astrophotography talk pages. However, it only has a passing mention, and I feel it's best to leave it with it's common useage until it's discussed properly on those appropriate pages. The discussion should go there, not here, and if it ever gets expert opinion referenced and updating of those pages, I'll update it here. Penyulap talk 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is a general picture I would dearly love to see included on the page, however I haven't yet asked about it's release into the public domain, for anyone who wishes to do so, wikipedia has a 'embassy' forum/talkpage thingy with multilingual editors who will assist you, so you don't need to butcher their language using google translate as I often do, lolz. (but remember, do your homework yourself, don't ask other people to help with the parts you can do if you try). RadioFan, would this be good for that computer section ?
Here is the link for LadsPawnMCbuttInCntrStrike.jpg from the page here it would be nice to open the door to this great source of images, there are great ones of the food and all sorts of things. Penyulap talk 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A similar probably can be found here.-- Craigboy ( talk) 05:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have asked here for the article to be included in WikiProject Japan, after I noticed a glaring omission, that this article isn't part of WikiProject Japan, I have also asked here regarding CSA's involement. Penyulap talk 00:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
This is Draft of a new lede section, please comment on any faults of errors you can see and say if you support it or not. Please do not copy and paste parts out of this into the current lede, upsetting the current prose. This Draft is written in a different prose to the current lede. This is the first paragraph only, other paragraphs will contain other facts and points not covered in this first paragraph.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a habitable, artificial satellite in Low Earth Orbit. The ISS is the the 11th space station launched into orbit by humanity following the Salyut, Almaz, Kosmos 557, Skylab, and Mir space stations. The name Zarya meaning Dawn in Russian was given to the first module, launched in 1998, because it signified the dawn of a new era of international cooperation in space. The ISS program combines two space station projects, the Russian Space Agency MIR-II and NASA's Freedom, with Laboratory modules from the Japanese and European space agencies, and robotics provided by the Canadian space agency. These are the five major partners of the project. The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space and microgravity.
This is a sentence by sentence breakdown of the lede first paragraph explaining the choice of wording.
I'd like to put up more of the draft after RFC on this paragraph. Penyulap talk 09:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
please consider these ideas on the points you have raised
(reply to your helpful comments, and thank you !!!!)
(the whole context thing is going to get more interesting soon enough, with the 1st gen Chinese station being launched within the year of so, the Chinese are happy to co-operate with any other nation in manned spaceflight, so we'll have potentially two ISS's up there, I'm not mentioning it now, as it's not launched, but it will be manned pretty quick, and knowing the Chinese program and economy, they could zip backups off the production line in a flash.)
Penyulap talk 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, a point of view that didn't occur to me till just then, are you concerned about the use of the word successfully ? as in successfully launched, because your right there, it's not a good choice of word. People would argue until the end of time about skylabs launch. Is it better like this
Penyulap talk 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I missed something, but what's wrong with the current lead paragraph? The proposed one doesn't really seem better in any way that I can see. The current lead seems clear, concise, neutral, well-written, informative, well-referenced.. it gets to the core of what's important quickly and efficiently. To me, it is what one should expect from an opening paragraph of a featured article. So could the proposer please clarify what problem it is they are trying to fix? Mlm42 ( talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, what reliable source states that the ISS is the 11th space station? Because if we don't have a source that says that, then it shouldn't be in the article (and definitely shouldn't be in the lead). Although the "Origins" section mentions the other stations, the intro doesn't link to any of them.. so if a change were to be made, the most natural place seems to be the insertion of a single sentence in the second paragraph. But I'm not sure what such a sentence should say.. perhaps Penyulap has a suggestion? Mlm42 ( talk) 20:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me why this article has been nominated for Featured Article Review. The first step of FAR says
What exactly are the issues that need to be resolved? Can the nominator, Penyulap, please state in one or two sentences the main issues which are not resolved? I can't say I've read all of the text on this talk page due to its length.. so a very short summary of the main concerns would be nice. Mlm42 ( talk) 17:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The lead some other article should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It that other article should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.
I've taken your advice on everything possible, but I can't understand some of it, you suggest that perhaps I should close off a poll I opened, even though I'm specific not calling for change or asking for action, just to get a long term idea of what everyone thinks. But after just 13 hours your asking if perhaps it's better to close off all further discussion about it? I don't understand, you called for discussion of ENG:VAR in the edit summary hours before, and it wasn't even editing my work as far as I know, because I don't care, I'm thankful for help. I was only trying to ask questions.
You've said on my talkpage that I need to get consensus, but then you say you 'stepped in to try and stop the unproductive discussion.' after just 3 days and one constructive comment on the talkpage discussion I opened to ask for comment. I don't understand how you mean I should discuss proposed changes, this is confusing me.
You tell me I shouldn't edit the lead section without consensus, but I've already made what I consider to be a complete mess of the rest of the article. Huge sections of it are a disgrace to my eyes. People have been too kind about what is there, or I must be my biggest critic, but I don't think so,. But I spent the last 9 hours preparing the FAR, calling in the very best minds available from not just the wikiprojects that the ISS belongs to, but something like 15 or 16 of them, to help fix my disgraceful work. Look at the cost section, it's hideous. I did the best I could, but there is no reference at all anywhere at all for any of it. I didn't make any of it up I promise, but there are no references at all for it, only the first line, which i didn't write. I expected things as obvious as that to be struck down straight away, or any of the other sections I wrote to be destroyed every bit as fast as my drafts of the lead that you say are no good at all (and I agree they are no good, when GW pointed it out, I changed everything all over again). But I was shocked that when the best people I can find to fix the mess I made arrived they haven't destroyed everything at all, I don't understand why they are waiting.
All I can see are errors everywhere, and I listed lots of them, but you keep saying to me on the talkpage to tell you more of them, but I can't understand why you can't see them, and why other people can't see them either. They are so plain and so obvious. Someone has to fix them, at some point someone has to fix these problems and I am getting worried and upset because so far lots are picked up on by the experts, but lots are missed, LOTS.
CAN YOU PLEASE DRAFT A NEW LEAD FOR ME, or tell me who can draft a new lead. I can't understand why my work everywhere else isn't getting slashed to pieces like my lead drafts do. I know I say the lead has to be updated and fixed, but I ask you, who can we get to do this ? if it ever needs to be done, WHO ? I wish colds7ream was here, he could do it, he has made lots more contributions than I have, but he's been busy with exams for ages, and there are so many problems to fix.
Mlm42 please tell me who should draft a lead if at some point in the future it needs to be done. And when? how long should it wait?
Also, I'm not sure this is the right place for this discussion.. perhaps I should move it to my talk page. Mlm42 ( talk) 01:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not finding this funny the ISS is possibly one of humanities most important stepping stones into colonizing other planets. Your stifling discussions here, you are asking me how to find references for other space stations ? you can't find any errors in the lead ? who are you, what is your agenda here how did you get into wikiproject spaceflight ? This is a serious article, this is important to millions of people, three thousand people a day look to us for facts. what is your agenda Penyulap talk 02:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
'The questions about errors in the lead are not a game, the question exposes you Mlm42 and Ckatz for what you are both doing to this article. I will not hide on talkpages. I have exposed what is going on here. I will continue to discuss problems that many other editors are having which are discouraging their honest contributions to this project. Penyulap talk 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Once that is dealt with every editor with something to offer will be welcome to do so, even you and Ckatz. There have been problems in the past, bad feelings in this discussion, and God help me I will root them out and find the cause, and make it so every person. EVERY person can feel welcome and comfortable here. Penyulap talk 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Penyulap talk 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Ckatz can you give me any advice on the ISS matters ? I seem to be asking you over and over without response, like two weeks ago, I asked you about the ISS, but you only respond within hours to matters like the ENG:VAR, should I stop asking you advice on ISS matters altogether ? I want your ideas, I seek your opinions on matters relating to the space station itself. Penyulap talk 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." By your own definition, the changes to the lead did not have consensus as they were reverted by at least two editors. --Ckatzchatspy 17:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"Any edit I make that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." is not my own definition it is Wikipedia's own definition. Perhaps you don't recognize it. The original from the 'What consensus is' section of the Wikipedia:CONSENSUS article says the following... "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. "
How about this Kim, stuff discussing it, my discussions on the talkpage are 'unproductive'. So I've just gone ahead and fixed 4 Major errors in the lead that the wikiproject spaceflight member who admitted he can't find a single one, has been reading over and over again for weeks if not months. Now, would you please be kind and gentle, I mean you Kim, not the 'editors who provide me great amusement' please assist this new to the ISS article editor, by discussing if the parts inventory from STS-135 is actually quite as important as some american media outlet he has probably been the victim of is saying it is. Forget my edits, the first three will stand forever unreverted. The last will need someone capable of research. It's perfectly correct of course, but someone had challenged it before, and I just ignored it as a result (I think you might see, I'm not into this confrontation crap, throwing down 'challenges' in the edit summary like Mlm42 does.) So as I am slamming the door so to speak, colds7ream, or anyone else who reads will be needed for that. But that new inventory section won't last, and that is a good editor. Penyulap talk 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
In reference to my recent edit: the first time I observed the ISS it started out as a little dot and then became a very bright reddish-orange "blob" (for lack of a better word). Mars colored. I assume this is because it was passing thru the earth's penumbra, appearing this color for the same reason total lunar eclipses appear orange or reddish-orange. However, what I don't know if this was because of special viewing circumstances, or is typical. Feedback is appreciated. I would revert, because I think I should have brought this up here before changing the article, but I'll leave that up to someone else for now. -- TimL ( talk) 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I found these short nasa documentary clips which talk about different aspects of zhe ISS. I thought that at least a few could be used in some way here. I am slightly concerned about POV issues regarding a subset of these clips but still think they may prove useful. Thoughts? -- U5K0 ( talk) 17:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
does anyone knows the status of the proposed experiment described here ? http://registration.istdayton.com/Briefings/In-Space%20Laser%20Power%20Beaming%20Concept(HBCU%20forum).pdf seems to be mentioned since 2000 as laser broom-- Beaucouplusneutre ( talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The language variant used in this article is a topic that seems to have created tension between some editors in the past.
This poll is simply to investigate which demographic editors are wanting to write this article for.
Simply majority consensus / first past the post has been asked for before. It's in the archives. There are still many who are not happy with the article, leading to occasional calls for change, and extra work for editors. Personally I have no opinion on the Variant/dialect used, however, I do see that it is a possible source of ongoing tensions.
As significant time and effort is put into the discussion of language used in this article, I'd like to contribute to a reduction in this workload in a constructive way. Rather than have another drive to address these concerns in the same way, and to avoid creating workload for people outside the ISS editors, I'll open a long-term poll.
At some point when there are enough responses to warrant, I'll tally the results using the Ranked Pairs system, which after a study of systems that might apply best to a talkpage/article which has fallen into this situation, is the best I can find. (without asking the higher-ups for help, I'm assuming here we can all be mature enough to find some common ground ourselves).
Now and then, I'll tally the results again if someone asks, or there have been a good few more. If I leave in a few years, someone else is welcome to do so.
If this problem is alleviated by the creation of separate Wikipedias for EN-GB and EN-American and EN-INT Wikipedia, please don't use this poll's results on those new article pages. (If separate wikis were created, I'd for one be happy to contribute to all 3, I already actually contribute on foreign wikis regularly where I can't speak a single word of the language, it's all good).
As for my vote, as I've said I have no opinion, but will abstain anyhow, I'd rather offer impartial assistance to discover and repair the cause of the discontent, and I understand there may well be people who wouldn't want it fixed, but would rather things continue as they are.
As a footnote, I'd like everyone to consider the alt descriptions for images, which are for the blind. At the moment, I haven't been able to keep up with these on the new images for this article. Penyulap talk 07:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(cur | prev) 00:09, 28 June 2011 Mlm42 (talk | contribs) (172,559 bytes) (program -> programme. Article is written in British English; to challenge this, use the talk page) (undo)
(cur | prev) 07:52, 28 June 2011 Penyulap (talk | contribs) (141,258 bytes) (→ENG:VAR British English, American English, International English, no specification for English.: new section) (undo)
I move to close this discussion, unless someone actually expresses a desire to change from the British English system which has been established on this article for quite a while. Mlm42 ( talk) 01:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
At first, I just couldn't resist putting quotation marks around this one,
but then I realize it's pure Gold !! "Nobody here has objected to British English." Penyulap talk 13:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
ISS article should use American English. It's mostly an American project, there is no British module, Australian module, NZ module, Irish module etc; as Europe/ESA isn't Britain, Britain's contribution is less than one module. The Canadian contribution is one module, an Arm. The only other country aside from the US with many components is Russia, which isn't an English-speaking locality. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 07:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the above poster, since more than $100 billion of the $160 billion cost comes from the US, it is primarily a US project. The UK has a policy against human spaceflight and is not a partner member of the ESA in the ISS, so it makes little sense to use the UK spellings in this article, since there is no support for the project from that country. The reason posted for why this is, is that the article originally was written in UK English, and despite urgings from various members of the Wikipedia community to bring the language used to better reflect the national origins of the subject mater the language has not been updated. This is espeically jarring, since most of the primary sources for the article are NASA websites, which, of course, use US English. The current state of the article goes against Wikipedia policy (the equivalent would be if the Oscar Wilde article used US English, despite it's subject having a UK origin). 72.207.232.42 ( talk) 03:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that a lot of people have been talking about ISS as a diplomatic factor lately. I looked it up and have found that it seems to stem from the Obama National Space Policy and subsequent NASA and administration documents. The relevant part of the National Space Policy says the following:
Continue the operation of the International Space Station (ISS), in cooperation with its international partners, likely to 2020 or beyond, and expand efforts to: utilize the ISS for scientific, technological, commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes; support activities requiring the unique attributes of humans in space; serve as a continuous human presence in Earth orbit; and support future objectives in human space exploration;
Should this be included in the purpose section even though it's a later addition to the purpose of Station? If so, in what way should it be added? -- U5K0 ( talk) 01:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
In the 2010 US National Space Policy, the ISS was given additional roles of serving commercial, diplomatic, and educational purposes. [1]
This article was promoted only 18 months ago but it is currently at the top of the featured article clean up listing. Using the Featured article criteria as a guide I see multiple problems with the article as it currently stands:
This notice is following the proper procedure of featured article review by first posting a list of issues on the talk page of the article before actually starting the review. If these issues cannot be resolved in a reasonable amount of time (30-45 days) then a review will be initiated. The FA criteria not mentioned here were not checked so the possibility of other issues exist. Brad ( talk) 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
My apologies to all concerned for my newbie use of eng:var:spiderman. Here is my own wp:gibberish translation, apologies my language skills are still not up to scratch.
I will be glad to assist anyone for the reasons listed here. If this is a problem, or anyone doesn't want me to help other editors, feel free to let me know. Penyulap talk 16:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this picture of the 2006 solar eclipse from the ISS. I was thinking of putting into the purpuse section. Comments?
U5K0'sTalkMake
WikiLove not
WikiWar
14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Should we include a subsection to Life on board? There's this document detailing what's available as of 2008. I also recall Steven Swanson including Serenity and Firefly to the library.-- DrWho42 ( talk) 11:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone - just to let you all know that I'm far too busy with final year medicine to be editing anytime soon, so crack on with whatever edits you like; I won't have a go, and frankly, if a bunch of us couldn't keep the article up to scratch for a measly 18 months, I can't really be bothered anyway. Colds7ream ( talk) 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Where are we going with updating this article ? it's OLD. Will anyone update the launch table and corresponding parts of the lead at the very least ? I read through it a week or two ago, and there are ten problems I counted in the first two paragraphs alone. Is anyone willing to discuss this ? I personally still won't bother fixing this crap for a while longer, or until Colds7ream wants to state his intentions. For anyone who wants to get some practice updating an article like this, with no guarantee it won't simply be rolled back to the smelly 2 y.o. state, here is some 'things to do' ideas.
I think the current section titled Module Launch Schedule shuld be placed directly after Pressurised modules just like Cancelled modules. Putting it in the same section as docked spacecraft makes very little sence to me. We're talking about modules, not spply or crew transport spacecraft. I think it should be moved in the way outlined. Any objections? -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the more I look at this, the more I believe that the entire structure of the article needs a reorganisation. Here's my proposal:
1 Purpose 2 Origin 3 Station structure 3.1 Assembly 3.2 Pressurised modules 3.2.1 Module Launch Schedule 3.3 Unpressurised elements (add a short summary of the structural elements moved out of the structure section) 3.4 Cancelled modules and components 4 Station systems 4.1 Life support 4.2 Power supply 4.3 Thermal Control System 4.4 Communications & computers 4.5 Robotic arms 5 Station operations 5.1 Orbit control 5.1.1 Sightings 5.2 Life on board (New section - Research activity) 5.2.1 Microgravity 5.3 Expeditions 5.4 Docking 5.4.1 Currently docked 5.4.2 Docking schedule 5.5 Mission control centres 6 Safety aspects 6.1 Space environment 6.1.1 Orbital debris 6.2 Maintainence (rename ro Repairs) 7 Politics 7.1 Criticism 7.2 Legal aspects 7.3 Cost 7.4 End of mission and deorbit 8 References 9 External links
We could also rephrase one or more of the section/subsection titles if apropriate. Thoughts, criticism, praise? -- U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)