User talk:Sdsds/Archive Jul 2007

Have a WikiCookie!

This cookie hereby awarded to you for your excellent work on space exploration related articles, and because cookies taste great. Vsst 18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

I moved your sandbox, User:Sdsds/in_space_eva from template space to userspace, because you accidentally made it in mainspace. Miranda 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The trouble with templates.

Hey there Sdsds, just a quick question, please. I've just put together a new infobox template for Space station articles, which seems at first glance to work fine. However, I've tried it out on the Salyut 7 article and for some reason it seems to add a load of blank lines to the top of the article (as you can see) - any ideas as to what i've done wrong? Thanks in advance, Colds7ream 14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't know for sure why this is happening. I notice the template uses the html <tr> kind of table markup. Maybe that's the trouble? Using Template:Infobox Aircraft as an example, html table markup doesn't seem to be needed in an infobox template. Maybe Template:Infobox Space station could be patterned after that one? (sdsds - talk) 14:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I based the space station template on the one at Template:Infobox Space mission, and that doesn;t seem to have the same trouble. Have I just made some stupid error in the coding or something? Thanks for the help, by the way. Colds7ream 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of Current spaceflight

Hi! I notice some of your edit log comments that refer to the instructions at Template:Current spaceflight. I wonder if you could help me understand those? What does it mean by, "routine unradio controlled flights, for example communications satellites". Why are comsats "unradio controlled"? Thanks for any insight you can provide! (sdsds - talk) 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about that "current spaceflight" template, I take it to mean that it is appropriate only for space exploration type space endeavors, not the spacecraft like communications satellites that are just deployed to augment terrestrial communications, or ones deployed to monitor terrestrial locations or measure terrestrial geography. The wording inside the box speaks of the "mission" with the phrase "Information may change as the mission progresses." - Bevo 04:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, this makes sense. Thanks! I understand now this isn't "template:ongoing spaceflight". As a descendent (conceptually, at least) of "template:current", "template:current spaceflight" only applies to spaceflights expected to generate news. (Why didn't I think of that! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 06:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No known cases

No known cases of spacecraft orginating from anywhere other than Earth. If they exist, they are beyond the scope of this article.

Really? So the launches of the top part of Apollo lunar lander from the surface of the moon into lunar orbit are beyond the scope of the article huh? This is written where?WolfKeeper 20:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flight of the ascent module as an independent entity originated on the surface of the Moon. The spacecraft itself did not. (sdsds - talk) 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can accurately be said that the ascent module spacecraft originated from the moon.WolfKeeper 00:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please don't bother telling me every hop taken by a moon-walking astronaut was a sub-orbital lunar spaceflight. I already know that. It just isn't very notable in the context of the spacecraft article. (sdsds - talk) 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitor; an astronaut on the moon is not a spacecraft.WolfKeeper 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also take big issues with redefining something, merely because something has or hasn't been done yet. I see no problem whatsoever with correctly defining terms prior to their instantiation.WolfKeeper 20:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We want to be sure to serve the best interests of the reader, eh? (sdsds - talk) 00:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll only accept your bizarre definition if you can cite it, otherwise, not. Good luck with that.WolfKeeper 00:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for citing a source supporting one definition or the other, I'd say to you "Ditto" if I really cared that much one way or the other. What I will say to you is, "Please avoid making the article more difficult for readers to understand." (sdsds - talk) 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying to justify redefining a term (i.e. WP:OR) on grounds of easy understandability. That is totally at odds with what an encyclopedia is for. Encyclopedias do not dumb down in that way.WolfKeeper 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Human Spaceflight

Hi there Sdsds, just a quick query - I see you've signed up to the WikiProject Human Spaceflight participants list, and I thought you may be interested if those on the list were to get together for a live chat sometime (maybe over MSN or IRC) in order to set out what we're hoping to do with the project and get it started properly. I think it'd make a lot of difference to the work we're trying to do with it.

If you are interested, and the other folks on the list are too, we can hopefully get together sometime soon at a date and time suitable for everyone on both sides of the Atlantic! :-)

Look forward to hearing from you, Colds7ream 10:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]