![]() | Spaceflight Project‑class | ||||||
|
The articles are rated for their importance to spaceflight. When making importance assessments, it may be helpful to ask, "How important would it be for the topic of spaceflight to include this article in an abridged version of the encyclopedia?"
Three different ways of expressing the priority of articles are currently used.
These are often different ways of saying the same thing, but the current WP 1.0 summary table mixes the three approaches: Top priority is described using method 3, High and Mid priority using method 1, and Low priority using method 2.
The table below of possible spaceflight importance levels provides more detail on the meaning of the individual levels, as well as examples.
Priority | Description | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top | An absolute "must-have" spaceflight article. | Top 5–10 conceptual articles, Top 10–20 individual spaceflights, and top 5–10 spacecraft types, Top 5–10 key historical figures, astronauts who achieved significant firsts, Launch systems with many launches, that broke records, or other major historical significance, Major space agencies |
High | Very much needed, even vital, spaceflight articles. | Main concepts and components of spaceflight, high-profile single spaceflights, highly-used "series spacecraft, astronauts of above-average notability. People who have flown beyond Earth orbit. Launch vehicles that are notable by setting records. |
Mid | Adds further depth, but not vital to spaceflight. | Most well-known concepts and components of spaceflight, Most non-routine spaceflights, most manned spaceflights, All professional astronauts who took part in a spaceflight, and aren't high or top importance. First launch vehicle to accomplish something (e.g. first Japanese orbital rocket). |
Low | Not as essential, or can be covered adequately by other articles. | Most spacecraft subsystems, Routine spaceflights, many non-unique spacecraft, Professional astronauts who have not taken part in a spaceflight, most people not crucially related to spaceflight., Cancelled launch vehicles, Cancelled missions |
Here are a few ideas I have had while working on assessment:
These are just my first thoughts on the current guidelines, so any thoughts on these might be good before they are implemented-- Cincotta1 ( talk) 02:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Working on incorporating both your guys' thoughts. I think eliminating the columns does a big part in that. The columns limits the number of categories to really top categories like astronauts, launch vehicles, etc. If we cut them out, we can just put in examples as we see fit (including putting rocket stages in low importance for example). If you guys have some time to work out some of the details and formatting there I would appreciate it. Then if we just put a little blurb at the beginning saying they are guidelines and not requirements, and therefore flexible, I think we will be fine. Possibly also put in that the importance rating is mostly for editors to know where to focus their efforts if they want to make a large impact. Let me know your thoughts and if this direction makes sense. Thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 04:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Spaceflight Project‑class | ||||||
|
The articles are rated for their importance to spaceflight. When making importance assessments, it may be helpful to ask, "How important would it be for the topic of spaceflight to include this article in an abridged version of the encyclopedia?"
Three different ways of expressing the priority of articles are currently used.
These are often different ways of saying the same thing, but the current WP 1.0 summary table mixes the three approaches: Top priority is described using method 3, High and Mid priority using method 1, and Low priority using method 2.
The table below of possible spaceflight importance levels provides more detail on the meaning of the individual levels, as well as examples.
Priority | Description | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top | An absolute "must-have" spaceflight article. | Top 5–10 conceptual articles, Top 10–20 individual spaceflights, and top 5–10 spacecraft types, Top 5–10 key historical figures, astronauts who achieved significant firsts, Launch systems with many launches, that broke records, or other major historical significance, Major space agencies |
High | Very much needed, even vital, spaceflight articles. | Main concepts and components of spaceflight, high-profile single spaceflights, highly-used "series spacecraft, astronauts of above-average notability. People who have flown beyond Earth orbit. Launch vehicles that are notable by setting records. |
Mid | Adds further depth, but not vital to spaceflight. | Most well-known concepts and components of spaceflight, Most non-routine spaceflights, most manned spaceflights, All professional astronauts who took part in a spaceflight, and aren't high or top importance. First launch vehicle to accomplish something (e.g. first Japanese orbital rocket). |
Low | Not as essential, or can be covered adequately by other articles. | Most spacecraft subsystems, Routine spaceflights, many non-unique spacecraft, Professional astronauts who have not taken part in a spaceflight, most people not crucially related to spaceflight., Cancelled launch vehicles, Cancelled missions |
Here are a few ideas I have had while working on assessment:
These are just my first thoughts on the current guidelines, so any thoughts on these might be good before they are implemented-- Cincotta1 ( talk) 02:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Working on incorporating both your guys' thoughts. I think eliminating the columns does a big part in that. The columns limits the number of categories to really top categories like astronauts, launch vehicles, etc. If we cut them out, we can just put in examples as we see fit (including putting rocket stages in low importance for example). If you guys have some time to work out some of the details and formatting there I would appreciate it. Then if we just put a little blurb at the beginning saying they are guidelines and not requirements, and therefore flexible, I think we will be fine. Possibly also put in that the importance rating is mostly for editors to know where to focus their efforts if they want to make a large impact. Let me know your thoughts and if this direction makes sense. Thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 04:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)