Template talk:Public-sector space agencies

message: 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)
replies: text: They weren't trying to get into space; they were trying to get into London.  Dynaflow 19:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags for defunct programmes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks Chanakya. Sniperz11 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Sections

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Public sector space programmes 

message: ; 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Europe and ESA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Why not call it Space Agencies ? I assume that that was the original idea.--Necessary Evil 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I agree... Without that public-shmublic :) --Yuriy Lapitskiy 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Most of the hyperlinks leads to agencies, I vote for agencies. --Necessary Evil 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public space programmes?? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Former Soviet Union 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mexican Space Agency  

message: 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)
thread_title:  ESA logo or Flag of Europe 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinasat-1
now vietnam operates its own satellite --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I object based on the fact that Vinasat-1 is a commercial endeavour (), not a public sector space agency project. Tom Paine (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: add vietnam

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I went in and put the soviet space program back in.  Nasa-verve (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many redlinks! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flag removal