Jump to content

Talk:Scientific research on the International Space Station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General discussion

[edit]

To the top of page
Materials International Space Station Experiment already exists in case you wanted to take a look.

Yes, great article, do you see how deep it is ? Can you find it from the info on this page, not direct link ? I will try to dig it out, and i'm almost certain, there's more like that. At least all experiment facilities deserve their own article, it would make sense to me, to include a list of current and past experiments, preferably, with their own article, explaining it, procedures, pictures, links, such. I can make a lot of red links, very fast, but separate articles on the next level might not be the best idea, to keep track. For that, i think, table. Or such table in this article, which would also make sense, and reduce clutter. --ThorX (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HAve you given any thought to how to sort the content of the article?
  • by agency
  • by research area
  • by when the research was done
  • by the facility it was done in
  • ...
Right now it's by agency since the references were found taht way but that may not be the best way to do this. I think that the research should be sorted first by topic area and then by agency and perhaps mentioning the dates of the specific experiment activities in the prose. If you would really like to make a table of all ISS experiments, you would probubly need to talk to someone more experianced than me and make an article similar to this: List of counties in Indiana. Bare in mind most people probubly aren't interested in each specific experiment and I also personally think that while such information is useful, it isn't as vital to Wikipedia as a good summary of the scientific work being done.--U5K0 (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed your posts on your talk page. I saw you only mentionned NASA and Roskosmos as having a well organised experiment archive. In fact ESA also has a nice archive as well here.--U5K0 (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the most basic unit is experiment, but that's too much. I would start from modules, sections, to facilities and experiments, and update referenced pages, leave here just a link and most general explanation. I would not group it around the fields, because that can be hard to define, many fields overlap, but not many experiments use more than one facility. Modules - facilities/racks - experiments, something like that, sections, which could grow into articles, can cover particular fields, with general explanation of experiments. I'm seriously considering a table. --ThorX (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most 'natural' approach to grouping it would seam to be, to just try and organize the information available. Meaning :
- for CSA, NASA, Roscosmos/Energia by experiment, for JAXA and ESA by facility --ThorX (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a bit on Wiki agencies pages (NASA, ESA, JAXA, Roskosmos, CSA), there would also be good to include at least some reference to science and experiments performed at the station. Same goes also for articles about various modules, which would profit from a reference to the rack/facility article, non existent at the moment. Kibo page shows promise, Columbus is very much what i'm talking about, i have not done more at the moment. --ThorX (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ESA, JAXA should be done by facility given the sources, but I think that since NASA and Roscosmos have their experiments already sorted into subject areas it would be smart to use that. I don't know what to do with CSA.--U5K0 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if we can manage to do a pragraph for each experiment that would really go a long way toward making this information available to the average wikipedia reader.--U5K0 (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir, and a great start for a new article, should we find a courageous enough person to do it. Let's just try and pull them all out, on Wiki, to this stage, one paragraph per experiment makes very much sense. Let's try and see how bad it is, and make two lists, one for experiment facilities, one for experiments, and then try and mate them, hopefully without loosing any information. We can also keep them separated, it would be easier to keep updated. --ThorX (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job with the table of contents, works as good as any table. Let's keep it like that for now, digest a bit table of experiments, but i think that might come out from NASA's page, crossed with Energia. If anyone feels some other section could profit from experiments listings, i will press no undo ever, what's more i would suggest some attention to any and all of sections.--ThorX (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This link is also mighty cool. Was going to suggest something similar ...--ThorX (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

To the top of page
That will also need some attention, because, it's a mess, i admit. Each of those links provide enough information for an article, but there's a lot more, and it would be nice, to have more than one source of information, where that is possible.--ThorX (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will check Wiki - Citation templates page, see if it helps.--ThorX (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


NASA seems to have relocated a lot of articles. Most of the references are dead links. 84.92.212.60 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun updating some of the links. One of the problems is that there has been a lot of changes to science on the ISS. With the hundreds of links it will take a while. --JCO11163 (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ISS internal racks by module?

[edit]

To the top of page
Thought: I think it would be a good idea to sort the internal racks by the module they are housed in. the information is available on the following sites: Kibo, Columbus, Destiny. Poisk--U5K0 (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Perhaps it would be time to think about moving agencies pages to their sites, under section 'research and science on the ISS', or similar, and keep here experiments grouped by field. We will probably manage to link them with facilities later through yet non-existent list of all experiments, which will have to wait, until we have them all here, i think.--ThorX (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with sorting research by field but would like to sort the facilities by module anywhere where that information is available. Great work on the organisation.--U5K0 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i was just trying to follow available data. Organizing facilities by the module makes a lot of sense, but in my opinion comes with a catch, to be exact - things move around. It will need updating and vigilance. Keep that in mind while thinking about the solution, meanwhile let's see, if we can link information from various sources through the article title suggestions. If we do it gently and properly enough, we get multiple references to the same part, which will help in organizing. I envision organization, in which would be precise location just a part of information, not a division. --ThorX (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
research in space Facilities on the International Space Station gives idea for organization, from appropriate sources, we might try and follow suggestion. --ThorX (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear. Are we now organising the facilities by location and the research by field? If so are we using the fields form the NASA website for all non-russian partners? That would be my suggestion.--U5K0 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To start with. We have to get experiments out of Energia page too, and try to merge them. We will see what we get then, i think. It would be nice to do the same for other pages, we can compare what we get, and coordinate names for titles of new experiment articles. There is enough data available for that with provided links, usually from multiple sources. In short : Let's keep shoveling it in, maintaining as much structure as possible in the process.--ThorX (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They will self organize into modules, if we put them in a category, similar to Columbus laboratory. It also makes it a trivial problem to move them around, if, or when, needed. This is also approach, i think best, for grouping experiments, in groups somewhere close to how the general sciences are grouped on Wiki, on the topest level possible. We can then just plug in our subgroup one level lover. --ThorX (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that it seems that every individual experiment and module is tagged to become a future article. I think it is a little unreasonable to think each of the ExPRESS racks will be able to justify their own article. The same thing for the experiments. I think it would be easier to get articles started if things were grouped under major headings and the articles would include general descriptions and details of individual units and experiments. For example only do an article link for ExPRESS rack. The article would contain a description of the overall system and specifics of each of the ExPRESS racks and perhaps references to experiments that have been performed in them. --JCO11163 (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction on nasa website

[edit]

To the top of page
This site has different titles for research fields as the individual sites it leads to. Personally from the contents of the individual sites I think that the titles on the above main site are more clear than the ones currnetly use in the article. I propose we change them to the following:

  • Human Research
  • Biology and Biotechnology
  • Physical and Materials Sciences
  • Technology
  • Earth and Space Science
  • Results From ISS Operations not devoted to Research (i think this one needed to be reworded to prevent people from thinking that the section contains all results from ISS science)

Thoughts?--U5K0 (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Will check for the details, and act where appropriate.--ThorX (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

To the top of page
Could you answer me in one sentence, or with a short reference, can i upload Energia, ESA, NASA images to wikimedia ? No general talk just NASA, ESA, Energia, CSA, JAXA images, how, and what no to do ? --ThorX (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I have uploaded a few low resolution ESA images in the past and they didn't ger removed. I'm not sure what the rule is for those. I know that NASA images are free and can be uploaded. Have no idea about JAXA CSA and Roskosmos images though.--U5K0 (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to upload any non-NASA images as Fair Use, and they've got to meet all the requirements thereof. Colds7ream (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take NASA and Energia as an example, you can show it here, or on my, or your talk page, your call. I will check what you are talking about, as soon as i get to it.--ThorX (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For images : Commons Upload and Commons - Copyright Tags - is a fast fix, i welcome better. --ThorX (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will use tag - {{PD-USGov-NASA}} – for public domain images from NASA., unless i get a better suggestion.--ThorX (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solution, i use, in short :

Existing (i created it, i hope) group on Commons for images = ISS Facilities or ISS Experiments (not yet)

I would like similar for other agencies, if exists. --ThorX (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

To the top of page

New articles

[edit]

To the top of page

General discussion

[edit]

Is there some form, template, something, for starting new articles, we need a mass ? There will be even more, when we start with experiments. Could there be template, based on a general structure of the available data ? --ThorX (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use, and suggest, abbreviation, or acronym, for new article titles, suggested by a link, with a reference to enough material for it. In case of experiments it is, as an example - EXP-B2-W3 (ISS Experiment). It is, in my opinion, the best way to resolve ambiguity and allow linking of information from various sources. I intend to use similar format for new facilities, or to be exact : Fac-something (ISS Facility). It is also in line with the format Module (ISS Module). There will be a need for redirection in a couple of cases, but i would prefer to start where it is easiest. I have some more suggestions about solutions, more about it later. --ThorX (talk) 09:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, along the line of standard article title generation - Rack (ISS Rack). I checked a bit on the existing facilities pages, they will link nicely to the experiments, if we do - Exp-SM2 (ISS Experiment) - titles. Poetry, later.--ThorX (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article titles for experiments are now mostly in the above said format, but about facilities, i'm not so sure. It looks as if we should drop (ISS Rack), and go straight for (ISS Facility), to avoid mess.--ThorX (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows about a template for new experiment and facility articles, it would be very much welcome. I'm not there yet.--ThorX (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed (ISS Equipment), nice idea. Would that fit to Small hardware, Sub-racks, .. gear ? I noticed a couple that are listed among experiments, facilities and small hardware, (holter), i suggest we clean such things later. I will digest a bit the rest of hardware, we need a word after (ISS ???) .. ?--ThorX (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to (ISS Facility). There are a couple of items that are in Facility and Experiment group, some are even in both, i would prefer not to mess with one more. --ThorX (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started with adding new articles. You can see information i use, and feedback i get, on my user and talk page.--ThorX (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solution to merging and grouping showed itself through categories. We can keep experiments separated, but they will merge on the categories page, where we can also put them in subcategories, depending on the field. It will be easy to keep this page updated, and all experiments easy to find, on generated and auto-updated categories page. For quick copy&paste, check my user page. Oh, and this is when more prosaic people come in. I will keep on dropping raw info in, include as much as possible internal links, references, at least a couple of easy to get images, but i will leave behind a horde of stubs. References will go with the new articles, when articles are ready, and make this page much smaller. --ThorX (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will use following new article titling policy, you can see some examples -

  • Use short version/abbreviation/acronym (ISS Category) on redirection page, then
  • Use longer version, if it is under 3, max 4 words and (ISS Category), otherwise
  • if title of new article is longer than 3 words, don't redirect, solve it later, it will show on categories page.--ThorX (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example of a new article - ETC (ISS Facility) - note copyrights and more info. Copy/paste skeleton on my user page.--ThorX (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running a search with only short version/abbreviation/acronym, like MSG, leads to updating disambiguation pages with the new article link and basic, one sentence, info. Sorting is alphabetical. --ThorX (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsections - headers

[edit]

To the top of page
In response to this, please read WP:MOSHEAD. -MBK004 21:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything about 1.st level sections. I did, and will continue to do so, because i start counting with 1. Try quoting the part, for which you think that applies directly to this issue. --ThorX (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see, or understand, what is the problem, so please, try again.--ThorX (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right here:
  • The nesting hierarchy for headings is as follows:
    • the automatically generated top-level heading of a page is H1, which gives the article title;
    • primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on.

Level 1 headers are never in articles used except those that are automatically generated (title of the article), start with level 2 for what you were doing. -MBK004 02:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good link is Help:Section#Creation_and_numbering_of_sections which says "Please do not use only one equals sign on a side (=Heading=). This would cause a section heading to be as large as the page's name (title)." It's mostly a style issue but it is the convention around here <shrug>. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy. I understand conventions, and have no need for different leveling, i just wanted to know, for future reference. I will copy the responses in the new article naming section, but you can do that too, it might be even better :) I go fix the skeletons. --ThorX (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Naming issues

[edit]

To the top of page

Basics

[edit]

Hi Thor, I see you've created several ISS-related articles and categories. I wanted to warn you about inappropriate capitalisation in titles, such as with Category:ISS Experiments and Category:ISS Facilities. In both situations, the second word should *not* be capitalised since it is not a proper noun. Also, "ISS" should always be expanded to "International Space Station" when used in formal terms like this. Please create new categories with appropriate titles, migrate the articles to those categories, and request author deletion for these. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Will solve this, before it gets out of hands. --ThorX (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Also, don't forget to rename your various articles that use the same formatting. For those articles, "(ISS facility)" is fine...you don't have to expand the "ISS" bit there. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help with examples ? --ThorX (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm staying with (ISS Facility) format in the titles, it's easier to see, for fast-reading. It is very obvious in the case of experiments, or in short, capital letter in (i hope so) the noun. (Forgive me my English teacher where-ever you are) --ThorX (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't disambiguate article titles unless there are two or more articles sharing the same title. Please don't do that. For example, I moved MARES (ISS Facility) to Muscle Atrophy Research and Exercise System. Of course, MARES could have worked as well (and I created a redirect from that page since it may be a search term), but the expanded title is recommended unless it just wouldn't make sense to the reader (for example, TROPI).
I understand the concern, but please check the amount of data. This has to be part of a second stage clean-up and solved with redirection, or i'm dead.--ThorX (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be MARES (ISS Facility) page, for redirection, if not else, or this is a serious trouble. --ThorX (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you'll take a look at this diff, you'll notice I removed two categories from the TROPI article. When adding categories, don't add "parent" categories when a child category is already present...in this case, because "International Space Station experiments" was present, there is no reason to add "International Space Station" or "Space science experiments", because the 'experiments' category is already present in those. I know, this is complicated and probably frustrating, but you'll get the hang of it over time. Considering that you've only been here a short time, you've gotten a lot of article writing done, and that's fantastic. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of category aerobics, please check. Some experiments and facilities go in the multiple categories, but not as a general solution, it has to be solved on a case per case basis.--ThorX (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some other naming examples: I moved "European Drawer Rack (EDR)" to "European Drawer Rack" because the acronym is extraneous. Moved "Microgravity Science Glovebox (ISS Facility)" to "Microgravity Science Glovebox" because the term does not need disambiguating (no other article uses that particular term). Moved "Holter (ISS Facility)" to "Human Research Facility Holter Monitor" because the term didn't need disambiguating, but the proper term for this is most appropriate as the article title. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do all of this in the first stage, but good job, and i appreciate it. This is exactly the problem i'm facing, and it takes too much time for me to solve. If you could help, like you just did, it would be very, very much appreciated. --ThorX (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When moving, i don't know how obvious it is, and how automatic, but i already link other articles to that title. I will use acronym redirection page to resolve the issue in the future. --ThorX (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the moved articles titles, and i think i know what you are talking about, and agree. We will see :) Will try and cause the least amount of trouble for other people, but some cases are beyond my abilities. They will be easy to spot :) --ThorX (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, don't hesitate to ask for help if you need it. As for moving pages, it is no problem because a redirect is automatically left behind. Like when I moved "European Drawer Rack (EDR)", a redirect was automatically created which forwards visitors to "European Drawer Rack", so you don't have to worry about fixing links within other articles. I've gone through the ISS categories and looked for obvious cases that need attention, and will look again tomorrow when I have fresh eyes :) For now, it is well past midnight, so I'm off to sleep! — Huntster (t @ c) 05:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one other thing I should mention. If you want to delete something that you made and that no one else has significantly contributed to, just add the {{db-author}} template to it, and an admin will come along and delete it shortly. No need to go through the whole Request for Deletion procedures! — Huntster (t @ c) 06:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, saves some trouble :) --ThorX (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made it bold, to be easy found and seen. --ThorX (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult naming cases

[edit]

To the top of page
Example of a horrible, i don't know what to do thing:

I will put here also some other tricky cases. --ThorX (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new article names in sub-articles

[edit]

To the top of page
I still don't know, how this will fit in, example:

I tried with new article titles, but it would probably be better, to solve this with abbreviations on the redirect level, to keep consistency. We will also notice clashes, when and if they exist. I will leave it now as it is, we can fix this later, by moving, if there will be, by any chance, new articles. --ThorX (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for new articles

[edit]

To the top of page
I need text to copy into new article to put it into one of the following categories :

  • ISS Facility
  • ISS Experiment

While i'm at it, i would like to put this article in at least one of the existing space related categories, if anyone knows where to find them, and can provide a link, not google hint. --ThorX (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last updated solution for the above problems can be found on my user page and in section about the new articles bellow. --ThorX (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

--ThorX (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste skeletons for new articles

[edit]

To the top of page

Procedure

[edit]

To the top of page
I would appreciate, if someone else would try, or at least comment this copy&paste skeleton, and procedure, which i describe here, using tabbed FireFox as an example :

  • open article page and talk page, each in it's own tab;
  • in the talk page move to the copy&paste skeleton;
  • in the article page move to the first red link, copy the name without abbreviation in parenthesis;
  • in new tab open new article editing page, add REDIRECT and paste in name of the article, copy line into edit summary. After you press save, it means - someone is working on the article, stay away from it for at least a couple of hours, just in case;
  • preview is always a good idea;
  • follow the link to new article edit, paste the skeleton in the new article;
  • in the main article page, open reference in the new tab (link hover is very lovely thing);
  • fill in fields in the skeleton with link, article name and appropriate information, such as categories, stub classes and such - it is easier now, before the bulk of text falls in;
  • this is when i also upload images to commons, using upload link for each image, and original in separate tab, makes life easier;
  • you can see example of which fields to fill with what here : Commons:Category:ISS research and science facilities and i would appreciate if you would put them somewhere on your own page too, just in case;
  • after the image is on Commons, close tab with the source, to mark it as done;
  • put images in the article introduction and gallery, close their tabs after the new article is saved with them;
  • copy and paste text from the source article, use UK-spell-checker, try to find as much internal links as makes sense, do not change spelling in names or designations, bad idea;
  • use a lot of preview;
  • don't forget the external links, if available, check if there is some other easy to get data or info.

--ThorX (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NASA C&P skeletons

[edit]

To the top of page

NASA facility C&P skeleton

[edit]


#REDIRECT [[]]

-----New facility article skeleton-----------------

[[Image:example.jpg|thumb|width=200px|Placeholder for description ]]

==Summary and Description==

<ref name=""></ref>

==Operations==

<ref name=""></ref>
==Results and Publications==

<ref name=""></ref>
==See also==
[[Research and Science on the International Space Station]]
==Gallery==
<gallery>
File:example.jpg|Placeholder for description
File:example.jpg|Placeholder for description
</gallery>
==References==
{{Reflist}}
{{Include-USGov
|agency=NASA
|url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science
|article=Article name}}
==External links==

{{Stub}}
{{spacecraft-stub}}
{{Product-stub}}
{{tool-stub}}
[[Category:International Space Station facilities]]

-------------------------

NASA experiment C&P skeleton

[edit]

To the top of page

#REDIRECT [[]]

-----New experiment article skeleton-----------------

[[Image:example.jpg|thumb|width=200px|Placeholder for description ]]

<ref></ref>
==See also==
[[Research and Science on the International Space Station]]
==Gallery==
<gallery>
File:example.jpg|Placeholder for description
</gallery>
==References==
{{Reflist}}
{{Include-USGov
|agency=NASA
|url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science
|article=Article name}}
==External links==
{{Stub}}
[[Category:International Space Station experiments]]

-------------------------

NASA skeletons comments and discussion

[edit]

To the top of page

  • use product stub just in cases where name of the item includes name of the entity.
  • remove general stub markings in clear cases.
  • not everything is a tool.
  • copy in additional appropriate categories, if known.
  • include a list of known publications and papers, if available, put it in a subsection.


So much about the discussion ... ( this will get updates, of course ;) ThorX (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESA C&P skeletons

[edit]

To the top of page

ESA facility C&P skeleton

[edit]


#REDIRECT [[]]

-----New facility article skeleton-----------------

[[Image:example.jpg|thumb|width=200px|Placeholder for description ]]

<ref></ref>
==See also==
[[Research and Science on the International Space Station]]
==Gallery==
<gallery>
File:example.jpg|Placeholder for description
File:example.jpg|Placeholder for description
</gallery>
==References==
{{Stub}}
{{spacecraft-stub}}
{{Product-stub}}
{{tool-stub}}
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
[[Category:International Space Station facilities]]

-------------------------

ESA experiment C&P skeleton

[edit]

To the top of page

#REDIRECT [[]]

-----New experiment article skeleton-----------------

[[Image:example.jpg|thumb|width=200px|Placeholder for description ]]

<ref></ref>
==See also==
[[Research and Science on the International Space Station]]
==Gallery==
<gallery>
File:example.jpg|Placeholder for description
</gallery>
==References==
{{Stub}}
{{Reflist}}
==External links==
[[Category:International Space Station experiments]]

-------------------------

Comments and discussion

[edit]

To the top of page

ESA Copyrights
[edit]
[edit]

To the top of page

[[Category:International Space Station facilities]]

[[Category:International Space Station experiments]]

[[Category:Space science experiments]]

[[Category:Space science]]

[[Category:Laboratories]]

[[Category:Columbus laboratory]]

[[Category:Destiny laboratory]]

[[Category:Kibo laboratory]]

[[Category:International Space Station]]

[[Category:International Space Station components]]

[[Research and Science on the International Space Station]]

Copy/paste skeleton comments

[edit]

There seem to be an awfully large number of red links here. Are they all likely to meet our notability requirements for standalone articles? Regarding the copy/paste idea, I think that some form of template substitution may be the way forward, which could be triedout in a sandbox. -- Trevj (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translation and JAXA

[edit]

To the top of page
I found more JAXA experiments here: ISS experiments in long-stay would like to know more about how to use it. I'm not sure JAXA has a translation to English for all of those articles, and i suspect, there are some more there than there are on the page. Suggestions ? --ThorX (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another link: Kibo" experiment in ..

Non-NASA copyrights

[edit]

To the top of page
I asked, it seams, on the most appropriate place, about copyrights, and this is where we start: (copy from my talk page) --ThorX (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

continued from WP:IMAGEHELP

[edit]

So I was looking into the copyright issues for making/modifying attribution templates for you and sadly came across nothing but problems:

  • The CSA license isn't PD. It's noncommercial, which is a problem. It means we can't use it except for as a source like normal references.
  • The ESA terms and conditions have the same problem as the CSA.
  • JAXA policy appears to offer no license at all.
  • All Roscosmos has is a blurb in the lower-left corner of the page which is so short as to be ambiguous, but I doubt it will let you import it straight into WP since we're rather particular about copyrights, as you may have noticed from your image work already. I'll ask one of the veteran copyright admins about it though and see if they have a different take.

Unless there are different terms for whatever subpages you want to use it looks like NASA is going to be your only source for material you can copy/paste instead of having to rewrite everything. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article entry

[edit]

To the top of page

Text

[edit]

I'm seriously considering shortening, not expanding, the first part to one paragraph - a couple of sentences length at max. All of this text is already in the ISS article, and not needed here as such, not to mention, that it looks ugly. In the same operation, i suggest moving references to the external links sections, as to keep them close and handy - i have no wish searching for them, when they will be needed.--ThorX (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief check of "International Space Station Science Research Accomplishments During the Assembly Years: An Analysis of Results from 2000-2008 - NASA", i'm getting an idea of more starting sections. I checked the intro on the page, and i don't think it can be split into Introduction and Summary without proper rewording. Images in the linked document are seriously and loudly asking to be uploaded too - i'm just not sure, what is the policy in such cases - but i guess i will find out later, as usually. --ThorX (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

To the top of page
Image on the page is also annoying me, so if anyone has any suggestions - now is the time.--ThorX (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added tags

[edit]

To the top of page
I've added a few tags to the article to point out things which still bother me about the article. This should not be understood as criticism. In fact the work done so far is amaizing and has happened incredibally fast. Even so the average person may get scared by the length of the list and a lack of prose.--U5K0 (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less the essence of the above section. This is how i see the solution:
  • entry text no longer than the height of the image, or a little more,
  • added text subsection, sort of introduction, summary, couple of analytical tables, and so on. Example : International Space Station Science Research Accomplishments During the Assembly Years: An Analysis of Results from 2000-2008 - NASA, but i think there is at least one more source to consider : main iss utilization brochure
  • lists from agencies follow - hopefully i figure out how to put them in tables, not exactly how, syntax, that's easy, but how to organize it to make it manageable and simple to view. I'm almost there, but i feel like some more hovering above would not hurt, at least until all other issues are solved. Solution might be sorting by references, which would need a couple of fields to be a solution, and i have trouble seeing this .. or maybe .. i might do experiments on my page before any drastic mesures;
  • Due to the availability of copy&paste material, this is an example of a source, to which solution must be compatible : Scientific and Technical Aerospace Report, 2010 (Volume 48), No.6 – March 29, 2010 (1.7MB), but i don't see that as a problem, just something to be aware off;
  • table off contents stopped at 2nd or 3rd level, but it would need sub-contents, from sub-level to the particulate depth, until, and if, everything gets on the same level, which i think is possible;
  • expansion of research field entries with text in the documents;
  • pushing references down with the new articles to shorten total length of the article;
  • naming references, where it makes sense, for the same reason.

--ThorX (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed article rename

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Page moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research and Science on the International Space Station → Scientific Research on the ISS — Colds7ream (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest we move this article to Scientific Research on the ISS, as the current title is far too long and sounds oddly non-grammatical. Colds7ream (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--U5K0 (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Now that you point it out gioto (talk)
Comment "Research" should not be capitalised since it is not a proper noun. --GW… 16:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to → Scientific research on the ISS- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 06:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. I think we've got a consensus here - anyone got an uninvolved editor handy who can close? :-) Colds7ream (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.
[edit]

I've taken a look at the what links here page for this article and I can't seem to get my head around it. I've changed all the links I can find in the ISS and Columbus articles to go directly to this one but it still says that some links go to the previous name of the article. I've waited a day+ and there seems to be no change in the situation. Anyone know what's going on?--U5K0 (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just been having a look, and there's still loads of links dotted about the place - working on getting rid of them. Colds7ream (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got rid of loads, 50 remain. Half are user pages and talk page archives (so can probably be left), but the other half are live articles and need cleaning up. Will carry on as and when. Colds7ream (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Now only non-article pages are targeting the old article name. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with European national space agencies (not ESA, e.g. DLR) and multinational experiments?

[edit]

Hi, is anybody still working on this page? I was wondering whether the ESA section should be renamed to "European" because some experiments are not ESA, but only done by a national space agency. And: how do you want to deal with multi-national experiments, e.g., joint Russian-ESA? Cheers! (Sternenstaub (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Great Wall of Red Text

[edit]

So, being somewhat of a space nerd, I found myself here as I was reading some articles about the ISS and I was rather disappointed in the state this article is in. From a quick glossing over, besides the introductory text this article is just a huge list of red text that links to nowhere and doesn't really explain much of anything.

I unfortunately neither have the time nor the knowledge to properly address this, but would it be allowed of me to ask that someone with the appropriate skillsets consider a complete rewrite or scrapping of this "article"? Maybe some day in the future this place can contain some interesting, exotic information! King Arthur6687 (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the title should be moved to List of scientific research on the International Space Station. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Scientific research on the International Space Station. 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:

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) 06:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scientific research on the International Space Station. 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:

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) 08:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Bodies in the space environment" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bodies in the space environment. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#Bodies in the space environment until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 07:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station&oldid=1210276820"