Talk:Genesis I

Spaceflight: Space stations Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the space stations working group.

The article contains orbital elements which are automatically updated by a bot. Updates usually occur on alternate Saturdays.
For more details, please see Template:Orbit.

Genesis I received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Random

Genesis-I and Genesis-i should redirect to this article.

There is a bunch of more precise info in this article: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/09/22/4632.aspx

Especially in the comments part. Corrected figures for volume, launch weight and proposed timetables.

Huge space

Why is there such a huge space above the article but below the page title? --myselfalso 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for "(module)"

Genesis I redirects here, this article should just be there. --Bp0 11:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've been meaning to clean up some of these redirects. "Genesis I" is likely better redirected to the Biblical "Genesis", which is where it *used* to point before someone made this article. I'll be fixing things before long. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

date formatting

which method is correct for this article, d m y or m d y ? Penyulap ☏ 01:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For both this and Genesis 2, I prefer MDY, since it is an American company; Navy blue84 prefers DMY, since apparently that is the format all other similar articles use (though I've never heard of that being a valid reason before). You can cast the deciding vote, how about it? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure I like to upset either side, I am a very big fan of consistency and order in many things, though I just got through writing docs for Palz ISSIB in Russian, woohoo!..... only 50 more languages to go :( I don't even know what the Russian date format is, but it's all there for them to pick out including the name of the month in Russian. I'm kindof thinking that articles in many ways are written for the readers, in the readers own language. But I would like to hear what NavyBlue84 has to say on the subject, it's important for us to know and consider properly. Penyulap ☏ 06:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have a good look through Date to decide my own vote. It looks like the article has ties only to the USA and Russia, and Russian interest is, I would think, quite minor, with a dozen stations of their own, a prototype for a US corporation wouldn't be of much interest I'd figure. Consistency is great, and a good idea in the absence of a national tie, but these prototypes have some interest within the US, so I figure that civilian US formatting would be correct. I had removed one of the military wikiproject templates I noticed on one of these two articles, after mentioning it at their project, someone else had answered by removing one of them, so I'd figure civilian US is good to go for these two. Penyulap ☏ 11:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genesis I. 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/20070529163309/http://www.spacequest.com:80/success/bagenesis.php to http://www.spacequest.com/success/bagenesis.php

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) 05:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]