![]() | 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 1 |
 Done
Congratulations to all who have worked on this article. It is now GA-class. Adding more citations may improve this article slightly. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Themcman1 ( talk âą contribs) 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Just a quick note to say thanks for the typo corrections that people have been doing, but to point out that, according to the Manual of Style,
As such, i'd be grateful if people could please make sure to make corrections in British English, as that's what i've written the article in, me being a Brit and all. :-) On the other hand, welcome to the article, all new people! Thanks for the help! Colds7ream 08:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the Wikiproject: Space Exploration assessment criteria, I have reclassed the article as an A-class article. I believe that, following extensive expansion, a peer review and various copyedits, it is of sufficient quality to attain this - and hopefully pass its current featured article candidacy. Colds7ream 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I went to schedule this article for the main page, but frankly, I don't like any of these pictures. I want a picture of Mir like akin to this one of hte ISS. The only one in this article that's even close is Image:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg, but unfortunately, that one also has the shuttle in it (I'd prefer one that only has Mir). Can someone look into this? (It needs to be copyleft also) Raul654 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The Phase One closes down (1998)-section has mixed up some numbers.
"907 consecutive days in space by American astronauts since the launch of Shannon Lucid on the STS-76 mission in March 1996"
Shannon Lucid was launched with STS-76 March 22nd 1996 and was on board Mir until she was relieved by John Blaha, who was relieved by Jerry Linenger, relieved by Michael Foale, relieved by David Wolf, relieved by Andrew Thomas who landed with STS-91 June 12th 1998. Summa: 812 consecutive days in space by American astronauts from lift of with Shannon Lucid to touch down with Andrew Thomas - NOT 907 days.
Norman Thagard arrived to Mir March 16th 1995 and left Mir July 4th 1995. For 8-9 months there were no Americans on board Mir. Shannon Lucid arrived to Mir March 24th 1996 and Andrew Thomas left Mir June 8th 1998. Total NASA time on board Mir is the 907 days.--Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few daysâ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Soyuz TM-21 Patch.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As this is a featured article, I think that the red author links should be removed from those references whose authors do not have their own Wikipedia article. The red links are distracting, and not every news reporter would necessarily be notable enough to warrant their own article here, nor would it be always possible to find sufficient information on the people to be able to put an article together. I suggest removing all the links from those authors who are not already on Wikipedia. Ariel â„ Gold 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There has been some recent discussion (notably here) as to whether NASA sources (publications and websites) are suitable references for spaceflight-related articles. This RfC asks whether or not these NASA sources are reliable sources? Colds7ream ( talk) 07:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a specific example of how NASA is not always a reliable source. (This isn't related to shuttle-mir, but I hope it is nonetheless appropriate to mention.) On http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresl/index.html (today's version), NASA asserts, "During launch, the first-stage booster powers the vehicle toward low Earth orbit. In mid-flight, the reusable booster separates and the upper stage's J-2X engine ignites, putting the vehicle into a circular orbit." I'm pretty sure this misrepresents the orbit into which the Ares I vehicle will inject the Orion spacecraft. Compare this to the description at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/366590main_Ares_I_FS.pdf which correctly mentions, "The upper stageâs J-2X engine ignites and powers the Orion spacecraft to an altitude of about 425,328 feet (80 miles). Then, the upper stage separates and Orionâs service module propulsion system completes the trip to a circular orbit of 976,800 feet (185 miles) above Earth." I don't think this is the only place where a NASA website misrepresents something! ( sdsds - talk) 03:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You make some good points: when NASA describes its own history it tends to reliably report factual events. There really isn't any good reason to preclude citing a NASA source regarding for example which Shuttle missions docked to Mir! But what about the assertions in the section ShuttleâMir_Program#Controversy? Is it possible WP:DUE issues arise there? ( sdsds - talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
IceDragon64 ( talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would not consider News@NASA the best of sources, but websites about specific programs and (especially) official NASA publications are reliable when describing uncontroversial aspects of the programs or the science generated from the programs. Who better to get info about a NASA program than from the scientists and engineers who work on those programs? Of course, the content of the material is important; controversial topics need to have second and third party reliable sources thrown in. This article does that. That said, the overall diversity of sourcing still may be a concern for this article (at least as the FAR is concerned). But not a big deal, IMO. -- mav ( talk) 13:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have found NASA sources to be usually reliable, but definitely not immune to error. I am sure there are webmasters that are called upon to maintain old archives of which they personally know very little. The OSO 7 page at HEASARC for a time had an incorrect image of one of the earlier OSO versions (Missions 1-6 were different than 7, and 8 was different than all the previous versions.) Some of the SP series documents on the web appear to have been re-typed in from photocopies, and have quite a few obvious typos. I think anyone who has significant personal experience with some of these earlier missions will find some errors. When I report them to the webmasters, they usually get fixed pretty quick, so that is worth doing if you have certain information. And everyone would be well-advised to be aware that mistakes happen, so cross check if you can in cases of doubt. But of course NASA is the primary (& often only) source for much of this kind of information. A secondary source based on a bad NASA source is likely to perpetuate errors unless the journalist has independent knowledge of the subject, which not all do. Wwheaton ( talk) 07:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In the "Attitudes" subsection of the "Controversy" section, this appears: "The Russians, however, would not budge, and many felt that significant work time was lost because of this.[6][44]" Examine footnote 44 for WP:UNDUE NASA influence. ( sdsds - talk) 21:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the SS-Mir program did not ORIGINATE as part of the ISS programme? It was concieved and started while the two nations were still planning their own new stations. It formed part of the basis of the ISS programme once the two nations combined their plans to create the ISS. (only part of it- the two nations had already linked in space many years before and MIR is not a physical part of ISS) No?
IceDragon64 ( talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Before work started on the ISS, for example, shuttle orbiters docked nine times with the Soviet-era Mir space station in what Cooke terms a âstroke of geniusâ in helping the former Cold War adversaries begin to understand each otherâs âengineering culturesâ well enough to build a space station together. From AW&ST: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/04/AW_07_04_2011_p56-341403.xml&headline=Shuttle%27s%20Lessons%20Will%20Endure%20For%20Decades&next=20 Can someone find a good place to incorporate it into the article? ( sdsds - talk) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on ShuttleâMir Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ShuttleâMir Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 10 September 2017 (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 1 |
 Done
Congratulations to all who have worked on this article. It is now GA-class. Adding more citations may improve this article slightly. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Themcman1 ( talk âą contribs) 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
Just a quick note to say thanks for the typo corrections that people have been doing, but to point out that, according to the Manual of Style,
As such, i'd be grateful if people could please make sure to make corrections in British English, as that's what i've written the article in, me being a Brit and all. :-) On the other hand, welcome to the article, all new people! Thanks for the help! Colds7ream 08:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with the Wikiproject: Space Exploration assessment criteria, I have reclassed the article as an A-class article. I believe that, following extensive expansion, a peer review and various copyedits, it is of sufficient quality to attain this - and hopefully pass its current featured article candidacy. Colds7ream 10:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I went to schedule this article for the main page, but frankly, I don't like any of these pictures. I want a picture of Mir like akin to this one of hte ISS. The only one in this article that's even close is Image:Atlantis Docked to Mir.jpg, but unfortunately, that one also has the shuttle in it (I'd prefer one that only has Mir). Can someone look into this? (It needs to be copyleft also) Raul654 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The Phase One closes down (1998)-section has mixed up some numbers.
"907 consecutive days in space by American astronauts since the launch of Shannon Lucid on the STS-76 mission in March 1996"
Shannon Lucid was launched with STS-76 March 22nd 1996 and was on board Mir until she was relieved by John Blaha, who was relieved by Jerry Linenger, relieved by Michael Foale, relieved by David Wolf, relieved by Andrew Thomas who landed with STS-91 June 12th 1998. Summa: 812 consecutive days in space by American astronauts from lift of with Shannon Lucid to touch down with Andrew Thomas - NOT 907 days.
Norman Thagard arrived to Mir March 16th 1995 and left Mir July 4th 1995. For 8-9 months there were no Americans on board Mir. Shannon Lucid arrived to Mir March 24th 1996 and Andrew Thomas left Mir June 8th 1998. Total NASA time on board Mir is the 907 days.--Regards, Necessary Evil ( talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few daysâ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Soyuz TM-21 Patch.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As this is a featured article, I think that the red author links should be removed from those references whose authors do not have their own Wikipedia article. The red links are distracting, and not every news reporter would necessarily be notable enough to warrant their own article here, nor would it be always possible to find sufficient information on the people to be able to put an article together. I suggest removing all the links from those authors who are not already on Wikipedia. Ariel â„ Gold 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There has been some recent discussion (notably here) as to whether NASA sources (publications and websites) are suitable references for spaceflight-related articles. This RfC asks whether or not these NASA sources are reliable sources? Colds7ream ( talk) 07:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's a specific example of how NASA is not always a reliable source. (This isn't related to shuttle-mir, but I hope it is nonetheless appropriate to mention.) On http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/aresl/index.html (today's version), NASA asserts, "During launch, the first-stage booster powers the vehicle toward low Earth orbit. In mid-flight, the reusable booster separates and the upper stage's J-2X engine ignites, putting the vehicle into a circular orbit." I'm pretty sure this misrepresents the orbit into which the Ares I vehicle will inject the Orion spacecraft. Compare this to the description at http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/366590main_Ares_I_FS.pdf which correctly mentions, "The upper stageâs J-2X engine ignites and powers the Orion spacecraft to an altitude of about 425,328 feet (80 miles). Then, the upper stage separates and Orionâs service module propulsion system completes the trip to a circular orbit of 976,800 feet (185 miles) above Earth." I don't think this is the only place where a NASA website misrepresents something! ( sdsds - talk) 03:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You make some good points: when NASA describes its own history it tends to reliably report factual events. There really isn't any good reason to preclude citing a NASA source regarding for example which Shuttle missions docked to Mir! But what about the assertions in the section ShuttleâMir_Program#Controversy? Is it possible WP:DUE issues arise there? ( sdsds - talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
IceDragon64 ( talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I would not consider News@NASA the best of sources, but websites about specific programs and (especially) official NASA publications are reliable when describing uncontroversial aspects of the programs or the science generated from the programs. Who better to get info about a NASA program than from the scientists and engineers who work on those programs? Of course, the content of the material is important; controversial topics need to have second and third party reliable sources thrown in. This article does that. That said, the overall diversity of sourcing still may be a concern for this article (at least as the FAR is concerned). But not a big deal, IMO. -- mav ( talk) 13:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I have found NASA sources to be usually reliable, but definitely not immune to error. I am sure there are webmasters that are called upon to maintain old archives of which they personally know very little. The OSO 7 page at HEASARC for a time had an incorrect image of one of the earlier OSO versions (Missions 1-6 were different than 7, and 8 was different than all the previous versions.) Some of the SP series documents on the web appear to have been re-typed in from photocopies, and have quite a few obvious typos. I think anyone who has significant personal experience with some of these earlier missions will find some errors. When I report them to the webmasters, they usually get fixed pretty quick, so that is worth doing if you have certain information. And everyone would be well-advised to be aware that mistakes happen, so cross check if you can in cases of doubt. But of course NASA is the primary (& often only) source for much of this kind of information. A secondary source based on a bad NASA source is likely to perpetuate errors unless the journalist has independent knowledge of the subject, which not all do. Wwheaton ( talk) 07:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In the "Attitudes" subsection of the "Controversy" section, this appears: "The Russians, however, would not budge, and many felt that significant work time was lost because of this.[6][44]" Examine footnote 44 for WP:UNDUE NASA influence. ( sdsds - talk) 21:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the SS-Mir program did not ORIGINATE as part of the ISS programme? It was concieved and started while the two nations were still planning their own new stations. It formed part of the basis of the ISS programme once the two nations combined their plans to create the ISS. (only part of it- the two nations had already linked in space many years before and MIR is not a physical part of ISS) No?
IceDragon64 ( talk) 23:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Before work started on the ISS, for example, shuttle orbiters docked nine times with the Soviet-era Mir space station in what Cooke terms a âstroke of geniusâ in helping the former Cold War adversaries begin to understand each otherâs âengineering culturesâ well enough to build a space station together. From AW&ST: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/awst/2011/07/04/AW_07_04_2011_p56-341403.xml&headline=Shuttle%27s%20Lessons%20Will%20Endure%20For%20Decades&next=20 Can someone find a good place to incorporate it into the article? ( sdsds - talk) 23:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on ShuttleâMir Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on ShuttleâMir Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)