Talk:Ariane flight VA245

Perhaps we don't need a separate article

Hi Benrem, thanks for creating this article. There is a traditional practice in our spaceflight coverage to indicate launch details in the article about the primary payload. Only exceptional flights get their own article about the launch itself. I understand the impulse to create a series for Ariane flights, but I don't think this particular one needs a separate article. I would advocate merging the information into BepiColombo. Comments welcome. @Rowan Forest: your opinion? — JFG ^talk 06:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am more interested in the science aspect of the space missions and leave the rocketry and orbital dynamics to other editors. So, I was a little bit surprised to see this article because I could not tell why this Ariane launch was more notable than the others. I tried to Wikify it without comments on that, but I think merging with BepiColombo is a good idea. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi JFG and Rowan Forest. To put this into perspective a bit: I started creating Ariane 5 (and also Vega) launches articles with VA241 that was notable. After that one, I continued creating articles for the following ones and started going backwards as well. My goal would be to have them all listed in the end.

I find it nice to have one article per spacecraft (or per mission, which is not exactly the same), and one for the launch(er) as well. The spacecraft/mission articles can focus on the core of it (it is quite rare to have a lot of details about the launch in these articles), while the launch one can provide more insights to readers who want to know more. Note that in the articles I created I only give high level information about the spacecraft relevant from the launch perspective (such as mass, prime contractor and operator).

This approach also makes a lot of sense for launches with multiple missions in particular, where you can have a comprehensive description of the launch at only one place.

Let me know what you think.

Kind regards, — Benrem (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Benrem: I agree that it makes sense to document flights with multiple payload separately. This has already happened with several Indian launches such as PSLV-C40, and with a few SpaceX missions such as Falcon 9 flight 26. Accordingly, I have added a |flight= parameter to the launch templates, so that it appears clearly in the yearly tables such as 2018 in spaceflight. For large scientific missions such as BepiColombo or Rosetta, the launch can also reasonably be spun off from the main article, as long as we avoid too much duplication. For more routine single-satellite launches, I would favor keeping the current convention of documenting the launch in the payload article. There were some attempts to cram minute details of launch delays and countdowns into ordinary launches, and that does not look notable enough for the general readership, as it drowns the more important information. Again, thank you for your initiative, and good luck with the backlog! — JFG ^talk 09:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Also: great job on articles Vega flight VV01 and VV02! — JFG ^talk 09:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Benrem: I have replaced your succession boxes embedded in the infoboxes by more elegant and standard succession links. The rocket type is filled automatically, and you can link to the previous and next flights with |previous_flight= and |next_flight=. — JFG ^talk 09:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Walking through the Ariane 5 articles, I noticed that date formats are inconsistent. Please pick a format and stick to it; we usually keep the European format for non-US launchers. You can add {{use dmy dates}} to the top of the article so that bots can flag inconsistencies. — JFG ^talk 09:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: thanks a lot for your modifications, it's much better indeed. I'll also have a look to make them more consistent. — Benrem (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

PSLV flights

Probably the PSLV infoboxes should be converted to {{Infobox rocket launch}} now, instead of {{Infobox spaceflight}} that does not fit well for multiple payloads. Pinging @AKS.9955, Dharmadhyaksha, and MBlaze Lightning:, who created most of those articles. — JFG ^talk 10:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. The spaceflight template also has a parameter for multiple payloads ("| payload_items"), in case you didn't know. MBlaze Lightning 05:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that, but still the template is only able to document a single orbit, a single COSPAR ID, a single decay date, etc. This |payload_items= parameter allows us to list various items being transported in an ISS cargo flight, for instance CubeSats that are meant to be deployed from the ISS later. To document a launch carrying several satellites into various orbits, each with their own COSPAR ID, {{Infobox rocket launch}} is more appropriate. — JFG ^talk 12:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; I see your point. I will replace the existing spaceflight infobox template with the rocket one from infoboxes of PSLV articles accordingly as soon as time allows. Cheers. MBlaze Lightning 06:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Official name

Hi @PhilipTerryGraham:, thanks for your edits to the article. Your modification of the name of the mission to "Ariane Flight VA245" triggers this discussion. The official name, as displayed in the front page of the launch kit, is "Ariane 5 flight VA245", however I personally find it a bit illogical, because it is the 245th Ariane flight but only the 101th Ariane 5 flight, therefore I am now considering (again in fact) renaming all articles removing the "5" (but without capital letter, as recommended by the Manual of Style). Cheers - Benrem (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Benrem: The launch's main page has "Ariane Flight VA245" right in the title, and the press kit makes no mention of "Ariane 5 Flight VA245", only "Flight V245". The poster featured on the front page of the press kit has it written as "Ariane 5 VA245 October 2018". This is obviously not meant to be the name of the flight, rather the names of the rocket, flight number, and the launch month written in a stylistic presentation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: you're correct. — Benrem (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Benrem: I would stick with Arianespace's official flight names, which indeed group all Ariane generations under the same numbered sequence. Hence, OK to move articles to Ariane flight VA245 etc. — JFG ^talk 12:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)