Talk:Ad Astra (magazine)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ad Astra (magazine) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Latin motto category

suggest removal from latin mottos category

doing now, as there were no objections and it is confusing in the categories page. Sparkleyone 06:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to "Ad Astra (magazine)"

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. —Centrx→talk • 04:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving this article (currently at Ad Astra) to Ad Astra (magazine) (which is currently a redirect to Ad Astra). Reasons: Ad astra is also a phrase used as a motto by several organizations, in general writings, the name of a video game, and the name of a metal band, just to cover usage seen here on Wikipedia. People come to Ad Astra and end up putting in unrelated content, despite the disambig link at the top. We have an Ad astra article (differing only in the case of the second word), and that is pretty confusing, any which way you look at it. I think making the "magazine" qualification explict in the article title will go a long way towards clearing up confusion. --DragonHawk 00:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons given. -- Beardo 22:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: The magazine comes up pretty high in a Google search and this move would add an extra click for people looking for that. Searching for "ad astra" already brings up Ad astra as one would expect. Ad astra should be featured more prominently at the top of Ad Astra and vice versa - that would sufficiently alleviate confusion IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thanks for doing the move, Centrx. I think I've got all the links in Wikipedia cleaned up, now. As far as wknight94's objection goes, many other things come up for the Google search, too, and the magazine is not the first, so I would say it is more correct to disambiguate. In my link clean-up, I found many links that would have been incorrect before, so it apparently was ambiguous for many. --DragonHawk 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Emerging China, Engaging China"

Gee, if they did that story now, it would have to include "Polluting the F*** out of LEO China"... Tualha (who is pissed off at China, could you tell?) (Talk) 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:FREE ENTERPRISE.JPG

Image:FREE ENTERPRISE.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AdAstraSpring2005China.jpg

Image:AdAstraSpring2005China.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ad Astra (magazine). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210201542/http://www.imaginova.com:80/newsroom/release.php?id=050131 to http://www.imaginova.com/newsroom/release.php?id=050131

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]