Talk:Airlock

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Underwater diving Low‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Have Space Suit Will Travel

needs description of the fictional 24 pressure chamber leading to an airlock. the chamber gradually increases pressure between 24 doors, each of which gradually increases pressure leading to a standard heavy duty airlock. Anyway, it needs to be in there.

Superlinka (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

The photo could not be less illustrative! It shows absolutely nothing about the structure and function of an airlock. The astronauts could be in any room any where. Does someone have a picture, or (better) a diagram of an airlock? Could you post it? Nick Beeson (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and Article Scope

So I'm new to Wikipedia and could be wrong, but I'm not sure that this article as it stands now focuses on the right kind of airlock. I'm coming to this article from Spaceflight, and to me that means that this article should be about the system by which people and objects may be moved from the vacuum of space to the pressurized interior of the spacecraft, or the reverse. Some of this article, then, is actually beyond its scope, and could be cleaned by simply mentioning it in the See Also section, or else get rid of it entirely. I'm posting this here before I or anyone else takes any action because I don't know if my reasoning is sound in the context of Wikipedia.

The issue of finding citations becomes marginally easier if there aren't so many diverse types of airlocks to find references for. Still, this will be an issue, but one that may make more sense to tackle after the article recedes to within a more focused scope. What are the thoughts on this?

- Scrat9518 (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not specific to any application or type of airlock. It covers everything known as an airlock. Perhaps it would be useful separated into functional sections, so, for example, spaceflight could link directly to the specific section, perhaps named as airlock#space vehicles.

As far as adding citations goes, that shouldn't make any difference. Inline citations are the norm and are easily applied to particular sections, paragraphs, sentences, or even words. See WP:CITE for details. —EncMstr (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you now that the article should include all types and applications for things known as airlocks, and further that sections would be a good idea. In the spirit of that, then, would it be reasonable to suggest a merge of fermentation lock into this article? That device is already mentioned here, and its article is a stub. It may be, instead, that fermentation lock is better off merging with another article or being worked on by its respective projects, which appear to be Food and drink and Wine, and only mentioned here. Again, I have little experience with Wikipedia as it stands now, so I'm curious what you or anyone else might have to say.

- Scrat9518 (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Airlock. 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/20131029193752/http://planetarium.osu.edu/renovation to http://planetarium.osu.edu/renovation

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).

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) 07:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airlocks in Fiction

I removed this section again. It does not seem relevant, and the examples given had either too much detail on the fiction or were only mentioned in passing. Documenting appearances in fiction doesn't seem in scope for normal technology. -- Professionalmartian (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Professionalmartian I agree with this decision - see MOS:TRIVIA -- Doomhope (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]