Template talk:Public-sector space agencies

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Public-sector space agencies template.

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

Flags for defunct programmes

Following the precedent set by including the flag of the Soviet Union, shouldn't the template also include (in the robotic spaceflight section) the flag of the Third Reich? The V-2 The flag's central symbol is inflammatory to some extent, but intentionally omitting the V-2 rocket programme is effectively against WP:NPOV policy. Sdsds 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't trying to get into space; they were trying to get into London. Dynaflow 19:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Sections

I suggest splitting the section on non-human spaceflight into those countries with their own launch capabiities and those without launch capabilities but who have built satellites. Sniperz11 01:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still having some difficulty understanding the criteria for inclusion in this template. I suppose for a country to be included, it must have a programme that successfully put at least one object into space, with the intention of that object either stay in space or do something useful while in space, not just pass through space on its way to a terrestrial destination. Alternately, it must be a programme that operates a spacecraft in space, whether the programme launched the spacecraft itself or not. Moreover, the programme must be run by some agency of the country's national government. Or is it enough that a national agency has the purpose of operating spacecraft, regardless of whether they have yet done so? Sdsds 02:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Section to improve readability on this page. IMO, I think the benchmark for a space programme should be that the country should have successfully launched atleast one indigenous satellite, either on its own, or on other's Launch Vehicles. Plus, another criteria I suggest is that the programme must be under a government controlled Agency or a consortium with government stakeholders.

I support the criteria for inclusion described above, which disqualifies sub-orbital programs from inclusion. My only caveat would be in a hypothetical case, of an agency which had launched an interplanetary probe on a direct trajectory, which had not orbited the Earth and was thus not technically a satellite. Seperately, I think understanding indegenous will become increasingly important. For example, what if a hypothetical Pakistani spacecraft were to use a radiation-hardened CPU manufactured in California? Would the spacecraft be indigenous? Sdsds 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I need suggestions and help in splitting the section on non-human spaceflight into those with launch capabilities and those without. As of now, the 3(4) countries with manned flight have their own launchers, and among the others, the following have successfully launched payloads to orbital paths on their own Launch Vehicle(s):

Europe (ESA)
Israel
India
Japan
Ukraine

Iran is not included as yet, since their only confirmed launch till now was sub-orbital, and most likely, was a sounding rocket.

Cheers Sniperz11 03:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes. Certain nations in the list don't have any satellites, whereas certain nations like Kazakhstan, Egypt, Australia all need to be added. Some need to be removed and some added.

Chanakyathegreat 08:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chanakya. Sniperz11 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Launch capabilities

I have undone the edit by User:João Felipe C.S in adding 3 countries to the list of those with launch capabilities. the reason for this is that Brazil has not had a successful launch, Korean KSLV is not yet ready, and the Iranians have not had a proven satellite launch, and the rocket they launched was most likely a sounding rocket.

This brings me to the Criteria for inclusion into the launch capability section. I suggest that we include only those countries/programs with the following conditions satisfied:

1. An indigenously developed satellite launch vehicle (not sounding rockets).

2. Ability to launch and inject satellites into orbit.

3. Successfully and sufficiently well proven capability of having done so.

A problem we face in this regard are the space programs of Britain with their Black Arrow rocket (launched successfully only once), and France, with their Diamant rocket (9 successful launches). Indeed, these two were the sixth and third countries respectively to successfully launch satellites into orbit. However, both nations now, do not possess any launch capabilities, having channeled them into the ESA, which launches their satellites nowadays. To explain this, I suggest another caveat:

4. Should presently have satellite launch capabilities.

This would help include both the UK and France under the ESA.

Coming to the case that Sdsds mentioned about planetary probes, such a capability indicates a well designed and powerful SLV/rocket. However, no country would launch such an expensive mission without testing the launcher first, and launching satellites wih it. So, by all reasonable means, such a case would not occur.

Coming to countries that should be included, I think we should include only countries with well developed space programs. The best indicator of this would be those countries that have built their own satellites (that have been 1. SUCCESSFULLY LAUNCHED into orbit and 2. WORKING WELL). This would exclude those which have outsourced the manufacture of satellites (like Nigeria).

Waiting for your opinions. Cheers Sniperz11 13:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly added {{see also | Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality}} to the template. In part because it does seem like "Which ones launched first?" is highly relevant, and in part because the discussion at Talk:Timeline of first orbital launches by nationality mirrors this one so closely, regarding which programs qualify. How much coordination between this template and that list makes sense? (sdsds - talk) 18:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil successfully launched its first rocket on 23 October 2004, from the Alcantara Launch Center. Several other successfull launches followed. Therefore, I am adding Brazil again to the list of countries (agencies) with launch capabilities.

Limongi 16:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Spaceflight: Criteria for Inclusion

Hi. In response to Rillian's suggestion, I'm creating this section on criteria for inclusion into Human spaceflight category. Sniperz11 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is that we include only those countries that successfully have sent a man into space on their own capsule/spacecraft. By this definition, only the US, Russia, China & USSR would be eligible. India has just embarked on a program, but hasn't yet successfully sent an astronat into space. Till then, it shouldn't be included. Sniperz11 02:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion. India's planned mission cannot be yet called a human spaceflight. This would imply that Japan(JAXA), Iran(ISA), Malaysia(MNSA), and Turkey should also be listed according to Human spaceflight#Space programs. --Biblbroks 's talk 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the requirement that placing a person in space is a pre-requisite for inclusion. That would imply that a country developing an independent ability to launch a manned spaceflight, with several unmanned launches, and perhaps a failed manned launch could not be included. Rather the criteria should be a funded, credible program that has moved past the planning stage and into development. Rillian 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do we handle private human spaceflight programs like Virgin Galactic? Do we list it under the country of the owners (UK?) or as a separate, non-country specific initiative? Rillian 01:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about this too. It took me awhile, but I came to the conclusion that this template should explicitly not cover private spaceflight programs. They simply aren't "national", i.e. they are not the program of a nation-state. But does that make sense? Or do we really want to rename the template to Space programmes? (sdsds - talk) 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Rillian's POV.... you can spend as much as you want, but till you actually get there, you can't count it in. Otherwise, by that yardstick, Edmund Hillary is not the first guy on Everest. "Human Spaceflight", by definition means sending a man into space. Capability is fine, but the ultimate and only test of this is actually sending someone up and safely and successfully bringing them back. Even by rillian's standards, the Indian Program shouln't be included, since they are still planning it at the moment. Sniperz11 07:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary isn't the first person "on" Everest, he and Tenzing Norgay were the first to summit. If Wikipeida was a 1950s-era encyclopedia and it had a tempate for "national Everest climbing programs", we would certainly list the U.K. and the U.S., even though they hadn't yet put their citizens onto the summit.Rillian 22:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the point.... if we went by your logic, we'd have to include all efforts including Mallory and Irvine's, just because they were trying to summit.... and even the first guys to go to base camp would have been named. Of course, with the wisdom of years behnd us, we wouldn't do that. Sniperz11 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by the name of this template it should be included in some category named Category:Nation specific templates or something. But as sdsds suggests it might be better if a Template:Space programs were created and then the table from this template would be a subsection of a more general template. Thus private space programs could be included in such template. As per Rillian's suggestion for funding a credible criteria for a space program passing into development stage, it might be harder than you think. Also how would you differ planning from development? Isn't planning part of development? --Biblbroks 's talk 13:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is named "National space programmes", not "demonstrated national space capabilities". India certainly has a national space program and one component of that progam is an effort to launch a human into space using its own resources (i.e. not by piggy-backing on another country's launch capability). In regards to planning versus development, I guess I was using a software programming analogy -- in the planning phase, you think about what you would like to build (and may even spend money on design and analysis), but in the development phase, you start the building. My understanding, while India is several years away from their first manned launch, the program is in the development phase. Rillian 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many nations that are researching Human spaceflight. Would you include all of them- JAXA, Malyasia, etc? Its very hard to characterize the status of development.... is there a certain threshold where we can definitively say that the capability exists. also, your logic must be extended to Launch vehicles, where Iran, Brazil, Korea and others all have or claim development programs, even having some failed launches... will you add those as well?? If you do not, then neither does India have a place on the human flight area, at least until they actually send someone up.

If you really want to include india, then add Japan, Malaysia and all other nations that fit the same bill.. In addition, put every single nation with a space program on the list, as well as launch vehicle programs. Otherwise, remove India. Sniperz11 09:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attn. User Rillian - Your argument is completely based on your own POV. It is only logical to have countries which have active human spaceflight programme (using their own spacecraft) to be included to "manned spaceflight" list. NOT based on the fact that you think your country will soon put a man in space. Indian space agency still lacks an official manned space programme and manned spacecraft.

Please keep in mind that this is suppose to be an encyclopedic site. So whatever who have read on the internet, please hold fire until countries like India have actually achieved their target(s). -- Ash sul 01:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there were an "Independent astronaut training programmes" template, how many institutions (not countries) would be included? Surely NASA and Roscosmos and CNSA. Are there any other independent (not relying on one of the above) training programmes? (sdsds - talk) 03:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

To the contrary, flags actually impede navigation and have no effect on readability. They are an inappropriate use of images. If a user clicks on the flag they will not send the reader to the article about the space program, or even the article about the country, as would be expected with a navigation system. They instead send the user to an unrelated image page which is no help to someone trying to read the encyclopedia or navigate between national space program articles—which is the purpose of this template. The flags do not improve readability and in some places are unreadable (e.g. Indonesia) or indistinguishable from other countries (e.g. China and Soviet Union). —Centrx→talk • 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, without the flags, it becomes difficult to easily see the different names, especially when we have so many countries and programs here...without the flag icons, they all look the same. Sure, the navigation becomes a bit more difficult, but i think thats offset by the easy readability. Its easier to identify the US or India flag than to actually fish through the names and find "United States of America" or "India" in there.

Just my opinion. Other users also please discuss. Sniperz11 03:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So bullet points can be added, as in a list. That is much better than using filler. —Centrx→talk • 02:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public sector space programmes

I propose renaming this template to "Public sector space programmes." Is there any shorter phrase that excludes private sector programmes but includes both governmental and inter-governmental programmes? Are we agreed that intergovernmental programmes (like ESA) should be included, or is there some reason the template should solely focus (as its current name implies) on the programmes of individually sovereign nation-states? (sdsds - talk) 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the only (current) reason the template should include only nation-states programs is its name. As for your proposal for the new name, I wouldn't quite agree with it. I suggest "Space programmes" instead. And within the template there would be separate sections for nation-specific, and international programs. This would imply that private programs would also go in it. At some point of time at least. Anyway, I see no reason for focusing solely on national programs and so I think that inter-governmental programs should be listed in the template. Any other opinions? --Biblbroks 's talk 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is something called a NGO - Non-Governmental Organization. Ergo, there is also Governmental Organizations, so my suggestion is Governmental space agencies. Necessary Evil 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europe and ESA

The 17 ESA member states

France Germany Italy United Kingdom Belgium Spain Switzerland Netherlands Sweden Austria Norway Denmark Finland Ireland Greece Portugal Luxembourg

Note this includes two non-EU countries, Switzerland and Norway. Note that the EU is made up of twenty-seven European countries, not 17. There are EU countries which are not members of ESA. We should strive to make this template, "As simple as possible, but no simpler." (sdsds - talk) 01:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented ESA and thus removed it from the template for the time being. This template name is National space programmes and so it shouldn't include international or private programs or agencies. --Biblbroks 's talk 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public space programmes??

The opposite of public is secret, so Virgin Galactic should be inserted. Since calling the Chinese space program public is a major exaggeration, it should be removed to Template:Secret space programmes.
Most of the hyperlinks leads to agencies, so why call it programmes? Space programmes could be; Apollo programme, Gemini programme, Soyuz programme, Aurora Programme etc. Necessary Evil 17:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Chinese SP is a secret program? What is a secret program? Gosh, Template:National space programmes was a fine name, who moved it? Why public? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs).

Governmental space agencies is a better alternative than the current title. But then enlistment of intergovernmental agencies (as is the case with ESA) would be in a way awkward. Definetely, the current attribute public just isn't a fortunate solution, because of the secrecy/non-secrecy meaning. Although somewhat cumbersome, public sector is a more appropriate adjective to be used in the template's name, IMO. Also, the term program should be changed into agencies, so the confusion with Apollo programme, Gemini programme, Soyuz programme, etc, can be avoided. Then the proposal would be: Public sector space agencies. --Biblbroks 's talk 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not call it Space Agencies ? I assume that that was the original idea.--Necessary Evil 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree... Without that public-shmublic :) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs).

Where were you when I was fixing all the mess with double redirects? ;-) Maybe it's the simplest solution. Surely at some point of time this will allow for the privately funded space programs to enter the list and the template. --Biblbroks 's talk 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about the history of space enterprises in countries like Japan, which had more than one space agency before consolidating them into JAXA. Yet even in a situation like that preceding the JAXA merger, we would only want to mention Japan once. Thus the template would have listed the Japanese "programme" and not the three Japanese "agencies". (sdsds - talk) 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the economics context of "public sector", the opposite of public is private, not secret. Please see public sector for a better description of what this phrase means. Note it includes activities both of government employees and the employees of state-owned enterprises, so "public sector" activities are inclusive of -- but broader than -- government activities. (sdsds - talk) 22:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hyperlinks leads to agencies, I vote for agencies. --Necessary Evil 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Space Agencies

Many countries have some kind of space programmes/agencies, with instruments on NASA satellites or maybe even a satellite launched by someone else. If all these minor space agencies should be in this template, it'll be pretty crowded. There are 192 United Nations member states, so with more than hundred countries it will be an immense amount of data.

Shall the template be renamed Major space agencies?
Shall the minor space agencies be in a hideable lower section?
Shall we hope that there aren't many Minor space agency-patriots who discover this template?
Insert your suggestion

--Necessary Evil 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions! How about this: if an agency currently operates even just one satellite, they go in the right-hand column. Unless they have recently launched an orbital space vehicle of any sort themselves, and have plans to launch another, in which case they go in the middle column. Unless they have recently launched a human spaceflight themselves, and have plans to launch another, in which case they go in the left column. Would that first criterion keep the number of entries reasonably low? (sdsds - talk) 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how many satellite operating space agencies there are. One thing is for sure; the Soviet Union should have a permanent seat in this template.

My concern is that nationalists could use this template to promote their own countries. If they read in a local newspaper, that the local university (e.g. Uni. of Duckburg) has produced an instrument to a NASA satellite - they will insert their country, even if Duckburg's Space Centre only consist of a professor and three PhD students. Necessary Evil 07:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Soviet Union

An editor has (several times ;-) edited the template's human spaceflight list to put the current Russian agency in a sub-list underneath the listing for the former USSR agency. For consistency, then, should the same be done for Ukraine in the next column over? Or is this simply some non-neutral agenda-pushing that should be reverted (again)? (sdsds - talk) 17:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uff, I haven't considered this point of view at all and so I already undid this sublisting - I simply regarded it as a mistake. Also I summarized my edit as formating and minor edit. I'm leaving as it is for now and will not undo my edit, until the editor (or someone else) comments on sublisting the Russian agency under the USSR agency. All the best. --Biblbroks 's talk 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Space Agency

The Mexican Senate are about to vote for a bill of creation of a Mexican Space Agency: AEXA (Agencia Espacial Mexicana). AEXA should deal with meteorology, telecommunications, disaster prevention, remote sensing etc. If and when AEXA operates satellites, Mexico can be on this template of Public sector space agencies. Satélites Mexicanos is a private sector space corporation and IMO not valid on the list. Necessary Evil (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Columbus and ATV will change things

We might benefit from discussing a bit in advance how this template might change once Columbus and the Automated Transfer Vehicle Jules Verne have been launched and activated. This will put ESA in the position of having launched a human-rated spacecraft (Jules Verne is human rated), and be operating via the Columbus Control Center a human-occupied spacecraft. It seems like that puts ESA pretty close to belonging in the left-most column of this template, even though they haven't launched a human into space. (sdsds - talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The left column is for countries which can put a man into space independently. Only three countries, and India maybe one day, can do that. But never ESA. Hektor (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few criterion that I suggest for evaluating Human spaceflight capabilities. A lot of this, I have already discussed in the section above, with User:Rillian

The agency must have independently developed most of the key technology and capability for human space flight. This includes the Launch Vehicle, Spacecraft itself, and Reentry vehicle. This is probably important, seeing the increased collaboration nowadays.
The astronauts must be from the country in question (This proves point #1 by substantiation).
The astronauts must actually be successfully launched into orbit and safely Return to earth. Until there is actually a proven capability for human life support in space, it cant be on the list.

Animal spaceflight isn't considered. This is Human Spaceflight, not Monkey spaceflight or Dog Spaceflight.
Simply proving of capability isn't enough - They have to send up a Human into space.

I would love your suggestions and comments.^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments -- I really appreciate the feedback! We pretty much share an understanding of what that left-hand column currently means. I suggest though, that we should think about changing what it means, re-labeling the column, to put more emphasis on in-space capabilities. (sdsds - talk) 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESA logo or Flag of Europe

The Image:ESA LOGO.svg cannot be properly be used in this context, unless someone gets authorization from the ESA to use the logo for this purpose. The Flag of Europe doesn't need permission for use, but the concensus has been that its use is not appropriate here, because it is so strongly associate with the EU, which is not ESA. (sdsds - talk) 16:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

add vietnam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinasat-1

now vietnam operates its own satellite --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object based on the fact that Vinasat-1 is a commercial endeavour ("Vinasat: About us". Retrieved 2009-03-11.), not a public sector space agency project. Tom Paine (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current format

Hi. Anyone else feel the current format makes the template look... messy? Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the differentiation seems pointless and messy. Almost POV; insinuates that the greatest space agencies are those capable of human space travel. There are other qualities. - SSJ ☎ 21:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more accurate to say "NASA" instead of "USA", and "ESA" instead of "Europe". I'm being bold. - SSJ ☎ 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also remove the flags, as, without the previous table-like formatting, they just look confusing. Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the flags are necessary, as some agencies, e.g. Comisión Nacional de Actividades Espaciales, don't have the name of the country in their title. Abbreviations and flags is the best solution IMO. And Iran's and Israel's respective agencies are both abbreviated "ISA". "without the previous table-like formatting"? The current version is also "table-like". - SSJ ☎ 13:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are other qualities as well but there is no doubt that the US, Russia, and China have the most capable programs in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.137.236 (talk • contribs)

Please log in. Ranking de facto "greatness" is at best unnecessary. It could be dubious or non-NPOV. - SSJ ☎ 14:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying that ranking by capability was not unnecessary but simply correcting your statement that "the greatest space agencies are those capable of human space travel" is invalid. Since it is clear that the three agencies with human manned capabilities are the most advanced and "greatest" if you will. 70.24.168.124 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that "the greatest space agencies are those capable of human space travel". I said that such a claim is neither encyclopedic nor verifiable. It's not a given fact that those who own a space shuttle are "the best". - SSJ ☎ 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in from a technology POV: there are clear technical reasons why a successful human spaceflight is more difficult to acheive than the spaceflight of a remotely controlled vehicle. One primary (and "obvious" once mentioned) reason is that in the case of human spaceflight, the spacecraft (or at least part of it) needs to re-enter the atmosphere safely! That means you had to launch all the mass associated with the re-entry system, i.e. the heat shield, parachutes, etc. But of course there's no reason why the technology levels demonstrated by the space agencies need to be visibly reflected in this template. The current version (which makes no distinction) looks fine to me. (sdsds - talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSJ, I think you misread by response. Sdsds's reply perfectly captures ,my opinion and what I was trying to convey with my statement. I have nothing against the current template. 70.24.138.211 (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys. I agree with the current template. The other one seemed a little POV. Alex Covarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 04:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why the "launch capability" (human/automatic) was removed? I suggest making the main agencies bold... --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 06:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Main agencies"? IMO, that's synonymous with walking down a very slippery slope when it comes to POV. - SSJ ☎ 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that NASA is more important than Iranian SA (at least, up to now). Can see no POV here. --Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 20:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the ideal NPOV world of Wikipedia, "I'm pretty sure that NASA is more important" is just a claim. Even if we could find some perfectly neutral way of ranking importance, I doubt it would make this template any more informative than it is now. Differentiation (e.g. emphasising the de facto imortance of NASA, ESA, JAXA and the Russian agency) is not necessary in my opinion. - SSJ ☎ 14:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

Why does this "navigation" template point to so many dead links? I believe that there should be an article behind each one of these links. Otherwise, we're wasting space. BuffaloChip97 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too many redlinks!

I took out some redlinks from PRC (China). Who has established these as notable? For all we know the articles for these agencies may never be created. Aren't all these agencies under the umbrella of CNSA?

The items I removed I pasted as is here:

China: ARMT, BWYIC, CSSAR, FMA, FA, FA, MRI, MAI, SA, SM, SMMBI, SHBOA, STMB
Argentina: AAB, IEAV, IAE, GETEPE
Iran: AIO, IDMSAI, SIG, SHIG
World: AP-MCSTA · APRSAF · ICSMD ·

Also removed Soviet Union as it is defunct:

Soviet Union MOM, SMF, GLAVCOSMOS ·

Jonverve ^Talk ^Contrib 18:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for removing Soviet Union? This is not necessarily "current space agencies", as historical agencies might be interesting (especially if there aren't any direct successors). --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you decided to delete Soviet Union agencies on the ground these are defunct why you did not the same with Europeans' ELDO and ESRO?. It seems logical to me to delete acronyms if there are no links to articles but not because they are defunct. Please reverse deletions until a discussion on the subject decides to delete defunct agencies or not. Tom Paine (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and put the soviet space program back in. Nasa-verve (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag removal

Rettetast - I do not agree with the removal of the flag icons. I think they serve to be a great separator for country and give a quick reference visually. Since this navbox is by default collapsed is does not clutter that much. Also, I do not think it clutters as defined according to Wikipedia:MOSICON. Nasa-verve (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we do not use the flag with the country name, but as a substitution for it. Quote from Wikipedia:MOSICON#Flags:

Accompany flags with country names When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size.

Nasa-verve (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this template uses the flags in the same fashion: Template:National Intelligence Agencies

Nasa-verve (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]