![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I'm thinking we may have a serious verifiablility issue here, which I'm sorry to say I may have helped to create. The race's beginning is easy to identify and well verified, when both nations declared intent in 1955 to launch satellites. But did it really end with Stafford and Leonov's handshake in 1975 (which was mainly just a political/diplomatic stunt), or with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its replacement with the Russian Federation in 1991, after which true cooperation in space was started (Shuttle-Mir Program, International Space Station, Westerners flying on Soyuz, etc.)?
If, as we say the Space Race is a creature of the Cold War, how could it have ended before the end of the Cold War? Did the Apollo-Soyuz flight really end the Race, any more than Nixon's détente "ended" the Cold War? We were trying to (but then gave up on) building our own space station called Freedom, and they were still putting cannons on their Salyut (Almaz) military stations.
Trouble is, we don't have reliable source verification either way. Ideas? JustinTime55 ( talk) 17:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Which spelling variety are we supposed to be in here? At the moment I see examples of both. -- John ( talk) 11:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm moving a recent IP user's rewrite of Kennedy directs the race toward the Moon here for discussion. It's all well and good that you have citations, but I have a few major objections to it:
Some may say that before Gagarin's flight, the sitting U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, had lukewarm support for America's manned space program. This in fact would be incorrect. Prior to his inauguration, Kennedy had been very vocal about the nation's space program. During the 1960 election, Kennedy used the topic of space as a springboard to win the election. In fact, Logsdon in his book, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest reinforced the argument that Kennedy did in fact use the topic of space to his advantage in the 1960 election, to the extent that his victory could partially be explained by his aggressive stance on space matters. [1] Kennedy depicted the coming decades as "a time of uncertainties, challenges, and opportunities for the American people." [2] This had been a strategic play to evoke a spirit of fear, without leaving a resounding feeling of hopeless, as he attempted to move the nation in a new direction--a play that held roots to his world view. Kennedy blamed the Eisenhower administration for misleading the American people and has been recorded many times taking the position for a more aggressive space program. Kennedy was careful with his wording about the space problem as his words were vague and never explicitly defined the program's future. Kennedy's vagueness allowed for an ambiguous program as he himself was disinterested in the subject. He in fact used space as a tool to advance a new era of change.
JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Space Race. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
At various places in the article, "Space Race" is written in either capital letters or lower case letters. MOS:DOCTCAPS indicates that it should not be capitalized. The input of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Space Race. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Should there be more info on how it started and then what came out of it? ( Brooklynsweney ( talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)).
I hearn here and there, USA won "Space" race (Neil Armstrong everywhere).
I have been thinking, isn't it Moon Race? I respect after-1969 achievements, such as Voyajer and Pioneer launches, and in this regard, "first object to leave Solar System" achievement is often overlooked. Uchyotka ( talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have just deleted the following comment in the summary:
This leads many to conclude that the US "won" the space race.
Reasons include:
There is one source stating that landing on the moon overrode all other achievements, however I bet there will be other sources out there with a different view.
Would suggest that the article should focus on that the “space race” concept has died away and been replaced by cooperation, as evidenced by the International Space station. Stating the the US “won” the space race is too subjective. Ilenart626 ( talk) 09:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the wording is biased in a few places. For example "The Soviet Union, failing to land humans on the Moon, concentrated on low Earth orbit space stations such as Mir." It is rewriting history as far as I know. The US made it a goal to "win" by going to the moon and the USSR also did try but they did not "settle with less" as the wording implies. One could easily argue that a space station is a much more important goal and just as hard. I think the article should be less biased/more neutral. Dustie ( talk) 00:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Neopeius ( talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I am delighted to assist. I think the biggest challenge will be reducing the length of the article as it is currently half again as long as the maximum length recommended by Wikipedia. I don't think trimming will be too difficult, actually.
I'll go through the various sections over the next week and make my suggestions.
Thank you very much for taking on this onerous task! -- Neopeius ( talk) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Neopeius: It's now 69,559 67,375 prose characters, 11,309 10,973 words. How does it look?
JustinTime55 (
talk)
21:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: Thanks for the ping and for the cutting. I will get to this over the next few days. If the length is right, I'll go into substantive edit review. :) -- Neopeius ( talk) 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: Alright. So length-wise, we're probably fine. The first thing we need to work on is the first section. It's vitally important that an article on the Space Race begin with...the Space Race. I strongly reiterate that the first section is counterproductive as is. This is easy to fix, at least to a first order of utility:
-- Neopeius ( talk) 23:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I put this together with a logical, historical flow; I don't think whatever change you want (as I understand it, and I don't really understand it) is simply a matter of moving around what is here, without a lot of rewriting. Why do you think the first section is counterproductive as is? The first time around, you said you wonder if it should be moved out to another article, to strip out 8K; but now you say we're OK on size. This section does "explain the German origins of ballistic missiles and the importance thereof to both superpowers".
Origins
First artificial satellites
??? JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This is what I meant:
Origins
Tell you what. This weekend, I will do a quick draft of that section and you'll see what I mean. We can go from there. :) -- Neopeius ( talk) 16:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
(This section needs a lot of revision, more so than most of the rest of the article. Since this thing is 25+ pages long, I'm going to do it in sections. I think the beginning will be more arduous than the rest.)
All of these are just wording changes that should be able to keep the citations. The only one you'll want a new citation for is the line you come up with regarding the 1975-1991 era.
@ JustinTime55: That's what I have the spoons for today. That took an hour. :) Again, I think the rest of the article will be smoother sailing. Cheers! -- Neopeius ( talk) 00:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: @ Nsae Comp: I've failed the GAC. One of the requirements is stability, and Nsae Comp has begun a complete rewriting of the article. Please feel to renominate when the article is stable (note: I may not be available as reviewer at that time). -- Neopeius ( talk) 23:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: @ Nsae Comp: @ Halo FC: Hello folks. I had just gone through and spent an hour making notes for the revision of the lead. :) It was dispiriting to then have a third party come in and then completely change everything. Anyway, for the future, Nsae, before making significant edits, you might go to the Talk page to see if the page is undergoing some kind of review. It should say that on the top of a regular page, too, but the Talk page will give more info. Justin, you've got my notes from before. If you want to revert Nsae's edits and implement, we can see about renomination and continuing.
Nsae, if your primary interest lies with the space race, I've got lots of projects to work on if you're game. :) -- Neopeius ( talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Extensive initial discussion
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Not every Wikipedia article needs an infobox, if an appropriate template does not exist. Please stop adding "military conflict"-style infoboxes to this article. Calling the spaceflight engineers "commanders and leaders" and adding decorative military flags defy our style consensus. Also, the so-called "end of the Space Race" occurring with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program (1975, not 1971; where did you get "January 12, 1971" from?) is WP:original research. Competetive space development on the part of the Soviet Union continued until the end of the USSR in December 1991, as the Buran programme definitely proves. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry; I seem to still be prevailing upon your limited abstract thinking abillity. I began my post by saying "Not every article needs an infobox." That is a wikilink to an essay on the misuse of infoboxes, titled WP:Disinfoboxes. I also referred you to Help:Infobox for more guidance as to what is and is not appropriate. You have not addressed the fact Space Race does not belong to a class of items, therefore it's impossible to identify what kind of infobox, if any, would be appropriate. Also please see MOS:FLAG for guidance on acceptable use of those little flags. I tried not to insult you personally: I said many people are not good at abstract thought. I have to guess where you're coming from and what you bring to the table since you don't see fit to fill in your user page. JustinTime55 ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"The Space Race falls into a class of space races"? Do you have a reliable source that says that is the consensus? And where are these "several space-related race articles? The other spaceflight articles are not "race-related". A flag by everyone's name is TOO MUCH for an infobox and is distracting, as Help:Infobox says. All the people you list are not "political leaders" (e.g. von Braun who never ran for office. Placing the Nazi flag by WVB's name is inflammatory. There are way too many names listed for an infobox; this is clutter, again as the Help says. I don't think you're going to have much luck getting a consensus to design a new "tech race" or whatever infobox from scratch, and you still haven't shown why the article needs an infobox so badly that it would be worth the effort. JustinTime55 ( talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Halo FC's draftI've added the sections of 'Operations' and 'Costs', and just wanna check what other suggestions for modifications you might wanna edit
JustinTime55's critiqueAllright, I guess it's time for me to pull out the old adage "if you can't beat them, join them" and I'll entertain your notion that the infobox is a good idea. But that is only so if the box summarizes useful, appropriate, significant, essential, non-trivial information about the topic. So here's a detailed critique, item by item:
Hi Mr. Justin, it's good to see that you've come aboard, I ain't someone to beat, we're both on the same side, we both wanna make it a good article, and I think reviewers will think that yeah, an infobox does make it look good So I've updated my draft, I think it's ok to have 4 images, as it's quite a common theme in conflict/competition infoboxes, and has aesthetic appeal too. I also think that the Space Race was about both the supremacy of capability and being a literal race, as being first commands a great deal of national pride and prestige. So I have the flags by everyone's names, was just wondering what you thought about this being a common practice for such infoboxes. I think that they also look good, two neat rows of flags, and they're almost all of the same two countries, so I don't think it's distracting. It also encapsulates the nationalistic, intense competitive Cold War tension between the two rivals. so I never asserted that von Braun was a political leader, and anyway, that wasn't why I changed it the way I did, I just wanted to abide by your suggestion to reduce the number of names, so I just included the biggest shots, the world leaders who were in office. But anyway, I followed your example on the list of names. Halo FC ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
My versionBased on this, here is my draft version:
——— JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
It seems the Achievements part is missing a lot. I'm not sure how to pick on achievement over another so it could quickly become a long list. Listing the shuttle is a bit of a controversial pick IMO since both sides built shuttles but while the one side (US) used theirs a lot the other had a more capable shuttle. Anyways I don't think it belongs in the list. Dustie ( talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've updated my draft above in response to sugestions and Justintime55's version Halo FC ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The article is too unstable for me to continue my review. If and when the article be stabilized, it is encouraged that the article be re-nominated. I may not be available to be the reviewer, however. -- Neopeius ( talk) 22:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see that there has been some discussion about the images before, but only in the context of the infobox.
I dont want to get into the infobox discussion, I only want to find a solution for the lead images, since I believe they can add a graphical overview if they are structured chronologically.
So my proposal looked like this at first:
| caption = Top: Sputnik 1 (1957), the first artificial satellite (USSR) and cause for the Sputnik Crisis which ignited public attention to the competition. Middle: Apollo 11 (1969), the first crewed landing on the Moon (US) and climax of the competition. Bottom: Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP, 1975), first docking between the two competitor states, testing shared docking systems enabling future cooperation programs away from the competition. [2]
and then for aspect ration and space reasons the following
| caption = Top left: Sputnik 1 (1957), the first artificial satellite (USSR) and cause for the Sputnik Crisis which ignited public attention to the competition. Top right: Apollo 11 (1969), the first crewed landing on the Moon (US) and climax of the competition. Bottom left: Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP, 1975), first docking between the two competitor states, testing shared docking systems enabling future cooperation programs away from the competition. [2] Bottom right: Space Shuttle (US) docked to Mir (USSR/Russia) (1995), both products of the ending competition, joined in the Shuttle-Mir program (1993-1998) which facilitated the ongoing International Space Station programme.
But both were taken out particularly the last one without any explaination.
Also the selection of images was changed and I want to defend it. For example the Moon image is more representative since it features Armstrong and Aldrin, as well as the lander and flag. The Mir picture since it has also the Shuttle. All of them showing the main events chronologically.
PS: regarding the Infobox; scrap the overlaping "Result" and "Achievement" sections. Nsae Comp ( talk) 18:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
PPS: The picture I proposed for the Moonlanding is also the most used for reports about it. [3] Nsae Comp ( talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
PPPS: If it wouldnt be for the somewhat streched definition of the duration of the race, I would take the Shuttle-Mir picture out (as in my first proposal) and put one of Gagrin in. But I am fine with Shuttle-Mir since for the readers its more important what it changed into, depicting the main changing points chronologically, and they are all in nice ~10 year steps (if you take the first missions of Mir and Shuttle outside the program). Nsae Comp ( talk) 09:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I did implement the above selection again (sorry for the quasi revert), but since the previois edit note was about conciseness I addressed that and put the uncommented picture selection back. Nsae Comp ( talk) 09:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
NatSecEncyclopedia
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EVERYTHING in the space race was a "propaganda stunt", including the "MISS" program and Apollo 11. Either add this comment everywhere or remove it here. 90.154.70.129 ( talk) 19:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Justin @ JustinTime55:, so I guess we've gotta continue our discussion on the infobox. I do think that my infobox is alright, and you said "Obviously no reasoning with Halo FC", though I think I did always try to address to your points. Anyway, you could remember why you even started this, because you were concerned about the GA, and I took that into account too, and now the reviewer has said that it's alright, and you got you wanted, it's all good
Anyway, if you still wish to push this, what would you like me to do in order to get the infobox acceptable Halo FC ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for such an extended quote of guidelines here, but to make it clear why I am opposed to use of individual personal flags here, I quote the relevant passages here and explain how this applies to this infobox.
For the purposes of this section of the guideline, "icons" refers to flags and similar images unless otherwise stated.
Appropriate flag use
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.
In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words.
See #Inappropriate use 2 for when to not use flags even if the information seems pertinent (in which case, add it in word form).
Consistency is not paramount
If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.
Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many.
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.
Space Race | |
---|---|
Part of the Cold War | |
Clockwise, from top left: A model of the
Sputnik 1
satellite,
astronaut
Buzz Aldrin
on the
Moon, the Soviet
Mir
low earth orbit modular
space station, the
Apollo 11
Saturn V
lifting off | |
Date | August 2 1955 – December 25 1991 (36 years and 5 months) |
Result |
|
Competitors | |
Political leaders | |
Technical leaders | |
Major operations | |
Major achievements | |
| |
Costs | |
US $170.631 billion (1958–1991) | |
Near catastrophes | |
Catastrophes | |
Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations
Some flags are politically contentious ;– take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts. Some examples are:
Biographical use
Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. For example, the actress Naomi Watts could be said, depending upon context and point of view, to be any or all of: British, English, Welsh, or Australian. She was born a British citizen in England, lived in Wales for a long time, then moved to Australia and became an Australian citizen. There is no single flag for that, and using all four flags will not be helpful.
Flags are discouraged in the individual infoboxes of biographical articles. Special care should be taken with the biographical use of flag templates in the following situations:
- In a case of reliably sourced renunciation of citizenship of a country, do not use the flag and name of that former country to indicate an article subject's nationality; if a flag is used at all, use that of the later nationality.
QED JustinTime55 ( talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello @
Incegnetty:, this is regarding the infobox photos. I think the user @
Indomiteus: brought up a good point, that the aspect ratio has to be considered. He also created a single collage photo. Previously, I had made something similar, using the photo montage template. The photo montage template is flexible, but not always able to work, and we might need to use single collage photos like the one Indomiteus made. Though before that we should work on which images to use, thanks.
Also, I'd like to suggest this infobox "Result" version as a well-rounded and concise set of points to be used for the article, thanks again. Halo FC ( talk) 04:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The last GA reviewer was concerned about article length. According to MS Word, the count currently stands at 12,372 words, 76,670 characters including spaces and footnote refs. The Page History X Tool says 11,126 words, 68,235 characters. The mellow, laid-back folks at the Teahouse are down with this. ( WP:Article size recommends "10,000 words (50 kB and above)".
At this point, I don't think it needs any more cutting just for the sake of cutting, although fat can always be trimmed from the lean. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be a view that Russia won the space race and the moon shot was a late consolation prize as outlined here: "the real pioneers of space exploration were the Soviet cosmonauts, telling the story of how the Russians led us into the space age." Since the article is 'the space race', how should winning the space race be defined? Burraron ( talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I'm thinking we may have a serious verifiablility issue here, which I'm sorry to say I may have helped to create. The race's beginning is easy to identify and well verified, when both nations declared intent in 1955 to launch satellites. But did it really end with Stafford and Leonov's handshake in 1975 (which was mainly just a political/diplomatic stunt), or with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its replacement with the Russian Federation in 1991, after which true cooperation in space was started (Shuttle-Mir Program, International Space Station, Westerners flying on Soyuz, etc.)?
If, as we say the Space Race is a creature of the Cold War, how could it have ended before the end of the Cold War? Did the Apollo-Soyuz flight really end the Race, any more than Nixon's détente "ended" the Cold War? We were trying to (but then gave up on) building our own space station called Freedom, and they were still putting cannons on their Salyut (Almaz) military stations.
Trouble is, we don't have reliable source verification either way. Ideas? JustinTime55 ( talk) 17:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Which spelling variety are we supposed to be in here? At the moment I see examples of both. -- John ( talk) 11:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm moving a recent IP user's rewrite of Kennedy directs the race toward the Moon here for discussion. It's all well and good that you have citations, but I have a few major objections to it:
Some may say that before Gagarin's flight, the sitting U.S. President, John F. Kennedy, had lukewarm support for America's manned space program. This in fact would be incorrect. Prior to his inauguration, Kennedy had been very vocal about the nation's space program. During the 1960 election, Kennedy used the topic of space as a springboard to win the election. In fact, Logsdon in his book, The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest reinforced the argument that Kennedy did in fact use the topic of space to his advantage in the 1960 election, to the extent that his victory could partially be explained by his aggressive stance on space matters. [1] Kennedy depicted the coming decades as "a time of uncertainties, challenges, and opportunities for the American people." [2] This had been a strategic play to evoke a spirit of fear, without leaving a resounding feeling of hopeless, as he attempted to move the nation in a new direction--a play that held roots to his world view. Kennedy blamed the Eisenhower administration for misleading the American people and has been recorded many times taking the position for a more aggressive space program. Kennedy was careful with his wording about the space problem as his words were vague and never explicitly defined the program's future. Kennedy's vagueness allowed for an ambiguous program as he himself was disinterested in the subject. He in fact used space as a tool to advance a new era of change.
JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Space Race. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
At various places in the article, "Space Race" is written in either capital letters or lower case letters. MOS:DOCTCAPS indicates that it should not be capitalized. The input of others would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 ( talk) 10:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Space Race. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Should there be more info on how it started and then what came out of it? ( Brooklynsweney ( talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)).
I hearn here and there, USA won "Space" race (Neil Armstrong everywhere).
I have been thinking, isn't it Moon Race? I respect after-1969 achievements, such as Voyajer and Pioneer launches, and in this regard, "first object to leave Solar System" achievement is often overlooked. Uchyotka ( talk) 12:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have just deleted the following comment in the summary:
This leads many to conclude that the US "won" the space race.
Reasons include:
There is one source stating that landing on the moon overrode all other achievements, however I bet there will be other sources out there with a different view.
Would suggest that the article should focus on that the “space race” concept has died away and been replaced by cooperation, as evidenced by the International Space station. Stating the the US “won” the space race is too subjective. Ilenart626 ( talk) 09:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the wording is biased in a few places. For example "The Soviet Union, failing to land humans on the Moon, concentrated on low Earth orbit space stations such as Mir." It is rewriting history as far as I know. The US made it a goal to "win" by going to the moon and the USSR also did try but they did not "settle with less" as the wording implies. One could easily argue that a space station is a much more important goal and just as hard. I think the article should be less biased/more neutral. Dustie ( talk) 00:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Neopeius ( talk · contribs) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I am delighted to assist. I think the biggest challenge will be reducing the length of the article as it is currently half again as long as the maximum length recommended by Wikipedia. I don't think trimming will be too difficult, actually.
I'll go through the various sections over the next week and make my suggestions.
Thank you very much for taking on this onerous task! -- Neopeius ( talk) 00:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@
Neopeius: It's now 69,559 67,375 prose characters, 11,309 10,973 words. How does it look?
JustinTime55 (
talk)
21:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: Thanks for the ping and for the cutting. I will get to this over the next few days. If the length is right, I'll go into substantive edit review. :) -- Neopeius ( talk) 17:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: Alright. So length-wise, we're probably fine. The first thing we need to work on is the first section. It's vitally important that an article on the Space Race begin with...the Space Race. I strongly reiterate that the first section is counterproductive as is. This is easy to fix, at least to a first order of utility:
-- Neopeius ( talk) 23:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I put this together with a logical, historical flow; I don't think whatever change you want (as I understand it, and I don't really understand it) is simply a matter of moving around what is here, without a lot of rewriting. Why do you think the first section is counterproductive as is? The first time around, you said you wonder if it should be moved out to another article, to strip out 8K; but now you say we're OK on size. This section does "explain the German origins of ballistic missiles and the importance thereof to both superpowers".
Origins
First artificial satellites
??? JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
This is what I meant:
Origins
Tell you what. This weekend, I will do a quick draft of that section and you'll see what I mean. We can go from there. :) -- Neopeius ( talk) 16:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
(This section needs a lot of revision, more so than most of the rest of the article. Since this thing is 25+ pages long, I'm going to do it in sections. I think the beginning will be more arduous than the rest.)
All of these are just wording changes that should be able to keep the citations. The only one you'll want a new citation for is the line you come up with regarding the 1975-1991 era.
@ JustinTime55: That's what I have the spoons for today. That took an hour. :) Again, I think the rest of the article will be smoother sailing. Cheers! -- Neopeius ( talk) 00:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: @ Nsae Comp: I've failed the GAC. One of the requirements is stability, and Nsae Comp has begun a complete rewriting of the article. Please feel to renominate when the article is stable (note: I may not be available as reviewer at that time). -- Neopeius ( talk) 23:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@ JustinTime55: @ Nsae Comp: @ Halo FC: Hello folks. I had just gone through and spent an hour making notes for the revision of the lead. :) It was dispiriting to then have a third party come in and then completely change everything. Anyway, for the future, Nsae, before making significant edits, you might go to the Talk page to see if the page is undergoing some kind of review. It should say that on the top of a regular page, too, but the Talk page will give more info. Justin, you've got my notes from before. If you want to revert Nsae's edits and implement, we can see about renomination and continuing.
Nsae, if your primary interest lies with the space race, I've got lots of projects to work on if you're game. :) -- Neopeius ( talk) 13:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Extensive initial discussion
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Not every Wikipedia article needs an infobox, if an appropriate template does not exist. Please stop adding "military conflict"-style infoboxes to this article. Calling the spaceflight engineers "commanders and leaders" and adding decorative military flags defy our style consensus. Also, the so-called "end of the Space Race" occurring with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program (1975, not 1971; where did you get "January 12, 1971" from?) is WP:original research. Competetive space development on the part of the Soviet Union continued until the end of the USSR in December 1991, as the Buran programme definitely proves. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry; I seem to still be prevailing upon your limited abstract thinking abillity. I began my post by saying "Not every article needs an infobox." That is a wikilink to an essay on the misuse of infoboxes, titled WP:Disinfoboxes. I also referred you to Help:Infobox for more guidance as to what is and is not appropriate. You have not addressed the fact Space Race does not belong to a class of items, therefore it's impossible to identify what kind of infobox, if any, would be appropriate. Also please see MOS:FLAG for guidance on acceptable use of those little flags. I tried not to insult you personally: I said many people are not good at abstract thought. I have to guess where you're coming from and what you bring to the table since you don't see fit to fill in your user page. JustinTime55 ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
"The Space Race falls into a class of space races"? Do you have a reliable source that says that is the consensus? And where are these "several space-related race articles? The other spaceflight articles are not "race-related". A flag by everyone's name is TOO MUCH for an infobox and is distracting, as Help:Infobox says. All the people you list are not "political leaders" (e.g. von Braun who never ran for office. Placing the Nazi flag by WVB's name is inflammatory. There are way too many names listed for an infobox; this is clutter, again as the Help says. I don't think you're going to have much luck getting a consensus to design a new "tech race" or whatever infobox from scratch, and you still haven't shown why the article needs an infobox so badly that it would be worth the effort. JustinTime55 ( talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Halo FC's draftI've added the sections of 'Operations' and 'Costs', and just wanna check what other suggestions for modifications you might wanna edit
JustinTime55's critiqueAllright, I guess it's time for me to pull out the old adage "if you can't beat them, join them" and I'll entertain your notion that the infobox is a good idea. But that is only so if the box summarizes useful, appropriate, significant, essential, non-trivial information about the topic. So here's a detailed critique, item by item:
Hi Mr. Justin, it's good to see that you've come aboard, I ain't someone to beat, we're both on the same side, we both wanna make it a good article, and I think reviewers will think that yeah, an infobox does make it look good So I've updated my draft, I think it's ok to have 4 images, as it's quite a common theme in conflict/competition infoboxes, and has aesthetic appeal too. I also think that the Space Race was about both the supremacy of capability and being a literal race, as being first commands a great deal of national pride and prestige. So I have the flags by everyone's names, was just wondering what you thought about this being a common practice for such infoboxes. I think that they also look good, two neat rows of flags, and they're almost all of the same two countries, so I don't think it's distracting. It also encapsulates the nationalistic, intense competitive Cold War tension between the two rivals. so I never asserted that von Braun was a political leader, and anyway, that wasn't why I changed it the way I did, I just wanted to abide by your suggestion to reduce the number of names, so I just included the biggest shots, the world leaders who were in office. But anyway, I followed your example on the list of names. Halo FC ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
My versionBased on this, here is my draft version:
——— JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
It seems the Achievements part is missing a lot. I'm not sure how to pick on achievement over another so it could quickly become a long list. Listing the shuttle is a bit of a controversial pick IMO since both sides built shuttles but while the one side (US) used theirs a lot the other had a more capable shuttle. Anyways I don't think it belongs in the list. Dustie ( talk) 00:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've updated my draft above in response to sugestions and Justintime55's version Halo FC ( talk) 01:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The article is too unstable for me to continue my review. If and when the article be stabilized, it is encouraged that the article be re-nominated. I may not be available to be the reviewer, however. -- Neopeius ( talk) 22:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see that there has been some discussion about the images before, but only in the context of the infobox.
I dont want to get into the infobox discussion, I only want to find a solution for the lead images, since I believe they can add a graphical overview if they are structured chronologically.
So my proposal looked like this at first:
| caption = Top: Sputnik 1 (1957), the first artificial satellite (USSR) and cause for the Sputnik Crisis which ignited public attention to the competition. Middle: Apollo 11 (1969), the first crewed landing on the Moon (US) and climax of the competition. Bottom: Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP, 1975), first docking between the two competitor states, testing shared docking systems enabling future cooperation programs away from the competition. [2]
and then for aspect ration and space reasons the following
| caption = Top left: Sputnik 1 (1957), the first artificial satellite (USSR) and cause for the Sputnik Crisis which ignited public attention to the competition. Top right: Apollo 11 (1969), the first crewed landing on the Moon (US) and climax of the competition. Bottom left: Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP, 1975), first docking between the two competitor states, testing shared docking systems enabling future cooperation programs away from the competition. [2] Bottom right: Space Shuttle (US) docked to Mir (USSR/Russia) (1995), both products of the ending competition, joined in the Shuttle-Mir program (1993-1998) which facilitated the ongoing International Space Station programme.
But both were taken out particularly the last one without any explaination.
Also the selection of images was changed and I want to defend it. For example the Moon image is more representative since it features Armstrong and Aldrin, as well as the lander and flag. The Mir picture since it has also the Shuttle. All of them showing the main events chronologically.
PS: regarding the Infobox; scrap the overlaping "Result" and "Achievement" sections. Nsae Comp ( talk) 18:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
PPS: The picture I proposed for the Moonlanding is also the most used for reports about it. [3] Nsae Comp ( talk) 21:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
PPPS: If it wouldnt be for the somewhat streched definition of the duration of the race, I would take the Shuttle-Mir picture out (as in my first proposal) and put one of Gagrin in. But I am fine with Shuttle-Mir since for the readers its more important what it changed into, depicting the main changing points chronologically, and they are all in nice ~10 year steps (if you take the first missions of Mir and Shuttle outside the program). Nsae Comp ( talk) 09:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I did implement the above selection again (sorry for the quasi revert), but since the previois edit note was about conciseness I addressed that and put the uncommented picture selection back. Nsae Comp ( talk) 09:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
NatSecEncyclopedia
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EVERYTHING in the space race was a "propaganda stunt", including the "MISS" program and Apollo 11. Either add this comment everywhere or remove it here. 90.154.70.129 ( talk) 19:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Justin @ JustinTime55:, so I guess we've gotta continue our discussion on the infobox. I do think that my infobox is alright, and you said "Obviously no reasoning with Halo FC", though I think I did always try to address to your points. Anyway, you could remember why you even started this, because you were concerned about the GA, and I took that into account too, and now the reviewer has said that it's alright, and you got you wanted, it's all good
Anyway, if you still wish to push this, what would you like me to do in order to get the infobox acceptable Halo FC ( talk) 14:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for such an extended quote of guidelines here, but to make it clear why I am opposed to use of individual personal flags here, I quote the relevant passages here and explain how this applies to this infobox.
For the purposes of this section of the guideline, "icons" refers to flags and similar images unless otherwise stated.
Appropriate flag use
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams.
In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words.
See #Inappropriate use 2 for when to not use flags even if the information seems pertinent (in which case, add it in word form).
Consistency is not paramount
If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.
Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many.
Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.
Space Race | |
---|---|
Part of the Cold War | |
Clockwise, from top left: A model of the
Sputnik 1
satellite,
astronaut
Buzz Aldrin
on the
Moon, the Soviet
Mir
low earth orbit modular
space station, the
Apollo 11
Saturn V
lifting off | |
Date | August 2 1955 – December 25 1991 (36 years and 5 months) |
Result |
|
Competitors | |
Political leaders | |
Technical leaders | |
Major operations | |
Major achievements | |
| |
Costs | |
US $170.631 billion (1958–1991) | |
Near catastrophes | |
Catastrophes | |
Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations
Some flags are politically contentious ;– take care to avoid using them in inappropriate contexts. Some examples are:
Biographical use
Flags make simple, blunt statements about nationality, while words can express the facts with more complexity. For example, the actress Naomi Watts could be said, depending upon context and point of view, to be any or all of: British, English, Welsh, or Australian. She was born a British citizen in England, lived in Wales for a long time, then moved to Australia and became an Australian citizen. There is no single flag for that, and using all four flags will not be helpful.
Flags are discouraged in the individual infoboxes of biographical articles. Special care should be taken with the biographical use of flag templates in the following situations:
- In a case of reliably sourced renunciation of citizenship of a country, do not use the flag and name of that former country to indicate an article subject's nationality; if a flag is used at all, use that of the later nationality.
QED JustinTime55 ( talk) 18:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello @
Incegnetty:, this is regarding the infobox photos. I think the user @
Indomiteus: brought up a good point, that the aspect ratio has to be considered. He also created a single collage photo. Previously, I had made something similar, using the photo montage template. The photo montage template is flexible, but not always able to work, and we might need to use single collage photos like the one Indomiteus made. Though before that we should work on which images to use, thanks.
Also, I'd like to suggest this infobox "Result" version as a well-rounded and concise set of points to be used for the article, thanks again. Halo FC ( talk) 04:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The last GA reviewer was concerned about article length. According to MS Word, the count currently stands at 12,372 words, 76,670 characters including spaces and footnote refs. The Page History X Tool says 11,126 words, 68,235 characters. The mellow, laid-back folks at the Teahouse are down with this. ( WP:Article size recommends "10,000 words (50 kB and above)".
At this point, I don't think it needs any more cutting just for the sake of cutting, although fat can always be trimmed from the lean. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems to be a view that Russia won the space race and the moon shot was a late consolation prize as outlined here: "the real pioneers of space exploration were the Soviet cosmonauts, telling the story of how the Russians led us into the space age." Since the article is 'the space race', how should winning the space race be defined? Burraron ( talk) 13:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)