Talk:Robert J. Cenker

message: This article's DYK appearance garnered 9,493 pageviews,  enough to have it listed in the permanent DYK Statistics Archive. RobP (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK results 

message: I am in the process of making a significant update to this article, and am doing that in my user space. If you have any suggested info to add, please do not make changes in the article itself; instead suggest them here so that I may incorporate them when I publish the update. Thanks! RobP (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Still working it... almost ready to go! RobP (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: I just replaced the existing material with the expanded article. I removed classification of stub as well. RobP (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article update status

message: I modified the WikiProject templates to remove the start class designation. Concerning the general classification rules  here, it looks like a B to me. I updated the Spaceflight classification accordingly and left a notice on that site as follows:
*I am going to reclassify (this article) as a B which seems to fit well with its current state. If anyone disagrees, please let me know why. Thanks! RobP (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article classification status

message: The Undue weight flag should not be used as that flag has nothing to do with a disagreement on emphasis such as this. That issue can be argued over on Talk without such a blemish on the page! RobP (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is not a blemish, it is there to encourage discussion, once consensus has been reached among editors, it can be removed.--RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it not being a blemish is a matter of opinion. It would be the first thing folks read and it certainly has a bad connotation. If it was warranted, I would say so be it. However, after reading the UNDUE page again to be sure, I do not think this is the kind of "controversy" it is meant to flag. We are not talking about minority viewpoints or mentioning Flat Earth nonsense on a page about the Earth. This is just a matter of opinion on emphasis of the mission following to this one and how often any mention should be included. If that sort of thing were a valid reason for its use - just the degree something should be stressed or not -  that banner would be on practically every article. RobP (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Eight times seems like a lot... but one is in the lede which is a summary of the article, and two are in Notes (which many do not even read). So there are really 5 in the main article... and two are in a single sentence mentioning the fatalities. As to the meat of the issue: Before my re-write, (I expanded this article from what was a stub with no citations) the entire article actually was in danger of being deleted. There was not enough content to give it a reason to exist on Wikipedia. One editor called it "just a CV" and asked for a deletion. A vote to delete could have happened at any time. So I wrote this from the viewpoint of a historical perspective: that what made this a notable mission WAS in fact what happened immediately after and how that affected things. Some have loved the approach I took. I guess others not so much. We shall see what happens. RobP (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenger mission material. Undue weight? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert J. Cenker. 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/20170731004724/https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/events-calendar/2017/march/meet-astronaut-bob-cenker to https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/events/events-calendar/2017/march/meet-astronaut-bob-cenker
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified