Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2007 Reorganisation

message: Nothing's happening! Now I can't wait anymore! The mess must be cleaned up, and even though I prefer my proposal, It is better that something is happening, than that my proposal wins. Hereby I withdraw all my own proposals in favor for the current Revised structure. Iff one of my own proposals is sufficiently better than the Revised structure, natural evolution of peoples activities here will successively change the structure towards that proposals in some future. It's important to go on from here, but this or that structure is not that important, IMHO. Are we ready to decide? Rursus 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On the wish list: <span style="color: red; background-color: yellow">a decision!</span>

message: I think that Space missions should be kept as a task force under Human Spaceflight. There are over 100 Space Shuttle missions alone, most of which are poorly formatted. Add to that the Apollo, Gemini, Mercury and Constellation missions, plus all the Russian missions, and all the Chinese missions that are going to start going up sometime soon, and I think we need to have something to give them a uniform structure. --Miguel Cervantes 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on what the distinction between "Space missions" and "Human spaceflight" would be? any human spaceflight has occurred as a "Space mission", as far as i know.. but perhaps there would be demand for an Apollo task force, or Space Shuttle task force? Mlm42 10:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "distinction" is that there is a redundant project. We have two projects doing the same thing, so I am proposing that the one with the least ambigous name is kept. Task forces could be set up under the main project to handle different programmes. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space missions 

message: The proposal says
:Wikiproject Constellations becomes the Constellations task force, operating as part of WikiProject Astronomy.
Hmm, the intention is right – constellation works is not an independent interest, it should belong somewhere, but I think it would be more appropriate to put the Constellations task force near Astronomical Objects, not Astronomy unless some other Space group expresses a very deep interest in constellations (Astrology uncounted for, but that's a matter of outgroup coexistence). Rursus 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make myself clear: what I say contradict the above proposal to run Astronomical objects as a task force under Astronomy. So I hereby suggest that Astronomical objects is , since it is active and has a lot of members, its area of responsibility being interstellar space and beyond. I also think that Constellation task force should be , for example operating under Astronomical Objects. Rursus 20:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Constellations in Astronomical Objects

message: It looks like all of the articles tagged by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System had already been tagged and assessed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects.  The solar system topic is obv. broad enough to justify a new wikiproject, but is the plan reassess all of the solar system topic articles?  Also, see :Category:Solar System articles by quality which has two entries for each class of article ("Solar system" and "Solar System")  --mikeu 16:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the "Solar system" class, simply by uncategorizing the categories. 131.111.24.187 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally I think it would be rational to transfer all solar system (except Sun) and planetology items to Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects takes care of stars and deep sky. Proplyd and star cribs could be shared. Rursus 20:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there was a need, we could create a "sun task force" of solar system; though I am more for consolidation than proliferation... Lunokhod 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, let just Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects and Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System share the responsibility. Maybe we shouldn't be too territorial? Rursus 23:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm all for moving the planets, asteroids and comets from astronomical objects to the solar system project.  The point I was making above is that starting a new assessment of article quality is a duplication of effort.--mikeu 15:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving is OK by me, I'm going to visit both projects anyway. Rursus 18:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  solar system objects 

message: Appears rather inactive, with one edit since July last year (9 months). This also looks like a candidate for "reshuffling". Any ideas about what to do with this? MER-C 08:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could rename it "Space Collaboration of the Month". In essence, space is the coordinating project, and one per week does not seem realistic to me. Lunokhod 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be a useful idea. If we drop the Spaceflight contribution as well, and just run one. I'll support te propsal. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should have two collaborations: a Space missions project, which could get the old Shuttle pages up to standard, and an astronomy collaboration. The astronomy could be for the month, but, since not as much work would be needed, the space missions project need only last a fortninght. Thoughts? --Miguel Cervantes 04:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astronomy COTW 

message: Would it be possible to establish a common database for all space-related wikiprojects to share templates in areas where they overlap. This would provide a centralised area for such resources and discussion about them, therby improving the mantainance and upkeep of these templates, and reducing the risk of duplication (I am aware of at least two infoboxes for astronauts that currently exist, and there used to be three for rockets). Also, could/should all userboxes be moved into project or userspace. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an idea quite in my taste. As discussions are going, the "root" project is to be WikiProject Space, and it would be natural to "place" all templates in Space. Which means: the templates are maintained under the roof of WikiProject Space, the documentation and links to those templates are to be reached from WikiProject Space. Rursus 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already started doing something like this. See :Category:Astronomical templates and subcategories, to which I've added as many astronomy-related templates that I can find. If you know of any others, please add them. Mike Peel 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I know about at least the constellation nav boxes. Just a second! Rursus 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehm, they were already there. I think some more explicit documentation is needed, like Template:WikiProject_Space/Navigation_boxes but regarding other templates. Rursus 19:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I just put astronomical templates as a subcategor of:Category:WikiProject_Space. I agree that they could be better organized. Lunokhod 19:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a good initiative. Now, the page Template:WikiProject_Space/Navigation_boxes counterparts :Category:Astronomy templates. I'll move the former to Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates, so that the similarity becomes clearer, and then we may add Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates and Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Astronomy templates/Infoboxes for the counterparting documentation. Rursus 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: D*rn!! I made it wrongly!! Aourrrgh!!  Fixup! GGGhrasshoorrrh! Rursus 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. Pardon for all inconveniences! Rursus 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please try to make sure that the documentation for the templates goes either on the template page, or a subpage of the template (transcluded both in the template and this new documentation page). I'd prefer to avoid having duplicate documentation for the different templates - it just complicates matters unnecessarily. Mike Peel 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By transclusion, maybe? See  for example. Rursus 17:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There seems to be a standard way of doing transclusion of template documentation: see Template:ArticleHistory for an example of it in use. Using that and transcluding it both on the template page and this guide page would seem to me to be the best way to do things. Mike Peel 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but that method works only if there's one documentation per template, and I'm having one documentation for four templates. My method seems to be similar, but I may be able to adapt those techniques to the methods used in our templates. The standard seems to be that Template:Gonk is having documentation in Template:Gonk/doc. Rursus 19:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm!! Somebody seems to have applied the standard method while I was away. Now, the consequence is that the [edit] links doesn't work! Revert please! Rursus 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Øh! Pardon my screaming! It wasn't one of us, I protested on his user page. Rursus 20:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He fixed it. Rursus 09:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template database 

message: Are articles on private space exploration within the scope of the WikiProject?  --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. All space-related topics are (or at least should be). --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a number of topics which would more suitably be categorized as "Space commercialization" as opposed to "Space exploration." Almost by definition, many of the private space efforts are among those, i.e. they are operated with little government funding and hope to be commercially successful. The biggest segment of "space commercialization" right now is surely satellite telecommunication. Personally, I would like to see WikiProject Space reorganized along tripartite lines: Astronomy, Exploration, and Use, where "Use" could be further subdivided into commercial, military, and scientific uses. Sdsds 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Private space exploration

message: The portal for WikiProject Space (Portal:Space) is still under construction, and it seems to be almost identical to Portal:Astronomy in what it covers. The state of the space-related portals isn't too good overall, and I think that this mirrors the problem with the space WikiProjects currently. We shouldn't neglect each portal if we want to improve the space WikiProjects so I think that the following reorganization should be done to mirror the reorganization of the WikiProjects:
;Current Structure
*Portal:Space (under construction)
*Portal:Astronomy
**Portal:Solar System
***Portal:Sun (unclaimed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals)
***Portal:Mars
*Portal:Space exploration
*Portal:Spaceflight
*Portal:Physics, Portal:Aviation, and Portal:Astrology (claimed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals?!)
;Revized Structure
*Portal:Space (maintained by all WikiProjects as "portal of portals")
**Portal:Astronomy (maintained by Astronomy WikiProject)
**Portal:Solar System (maintained by Solar System WikiProject)
***Portal:Sun (coverage too small and no related taskforce/WikiProject)
***Portal:Mars (maintained by Solar System WikiProject, Mars taskforce)
***Portal:Moon (added for Solar System WikiProject, Moon taskforce)
**Portal:Space exploration (maintained by Space exploration WikiProject)
***Portal:Spaceflight → Portal:Human spaceflight (maintained by Human spaceflight WikiProject) (kept as-is)
***Portal:Rocketry (added for Rocketry WikiProject)
Portal:Space would be completely remade into a "portal of portals" to showcase Portal:Astronomy, Portal:Solar System, and Portal:Space exploration (the main three space portals) and possibly their subportals. It would be maintained by all three WikiProjects and both point to those portals and articles related to them. The rest of the structure would be reorganized to mirror the revised structure so WikiProjects (or taskforces) each maintain a portal. This would also provide a hierarchy of the portals, which will help people find what they're looking for. An alternative would be to merge Portal:Spaceflight and Portal:Space exploration and not create a Portal:Rocketry, depending on the demand and ability to maintain.
We should stop linking to Portal:Physics (unless there's an astrophysics one?), Portal:Aviation (not related to the space projects at all), and Portal:Astrology (a pseudoscience), which are not maintained by Space-related WikiProjects. The reorganized portals should be plenty to link to. If needed, we can start a portals taskforce off of WikiProject Space to make sure all of the portals are maintained and done well (my experience with portals is primarily the featured portal candidate Portal:Solar System so I can help there). I think portals cannot remain neglected as they are a good way to recruit people to WikiProjects and to show the efforts of the WikiProjects as well. — Pious7TalkContribs 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with most, but I regard solar system as part of astronomy. This isn't an important point to me however, If they're treated apart, the only trouble will be that I'm going to be a member of both of them. Said: Rursus 12:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Portal:Solar System is a subportal of Portal:Space mostly to match the WikiProject organization and to prevent a confusing hierarchy of portals (Portal:Mars and Portal:Moon would be subsubportals if Portal:Solar System remained a subportal of Portal:Astronomy, and that would get confusing). — Pious7 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that's a good argument: the structures shall be isomorphous to be easily recognizable/orientable for mayhap future members. Said: Rursus 06:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would probably work out better in traditional format (not tabbed) and built from the ground up. How does one get inactive portals deleted? And what approach would we do - take sections from various portals or have it done more traditionally? We might even need to make a taskforce under WikiProject space to work on portals. — Pious7TalkContribs 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. MER-C 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I made an example of how it could work on one tab, but I'm not sure if tabs would work and if they do work, they'd have to be redone from the beginning. It'd probably be more work to reformat the existing out-of-date and under-construction portal than to recreate it from deletion. — Pious7TalkContribs 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the example "Things you can do" tab! I do have a simmering pet peeve, though: it's about the reorganization into "sub-portals". Specifically, if one of the top-level sub-portals is "space exploration", then there isn't really any logical place for "spaceflight", which is about *all* uses of space, not just exploration. From my perspective, "space exploration" is just one of the things "spaceflight" is used for. (OK, I admit that's an overstatement, but I hope it gets the point across. Commercial uses of space aren't exploration!) So of course I want "spaceflight" to be the top-level sub-portal of the Space portal that includes "space exploration", "rocketry" and "human spaceflight" as sub-sub-portals.... (Sdsds - Talk) 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea would be for the portals to mirror the reorganization of the Space-related WikiProjects. Perhaps your suggestion should apply to the reorganized WikiProject layout as well? — Pious7TalkContribs 01:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that space flight isn't the same thing as space exploration actually, foremost because space is also explored from the surface of Earth. As regards to what is not astronomy and still space exploration, aurora may be a reasonable example. Disregarding non-science, such as telecom satellites, non-astronomical science is often performed in space, such as crystallizations requiring nongravity, and verifying the Casimir effect. Let's say we instead rename space exploration to Portal:Space science or something similar to widen the concept of space with regards to science?? Said: Rursus 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Space science" is a bit too general, though, and could probably even include Portal:Astronomy under it. — Pious7 23:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I asked the question directly at #Subportal or not? so we can hopefully get a consensus. — Pious7 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem with that is that there's no WikiProject Spaceflight to correspond with Portal:Spaceflight. Without a corresponding WikiProject, upkeep usually depends on one person (which is disadvantageous) and there isn't a good To Do. — Pious7 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem of a Portal without an exactly matching Project can be overcome. Specifically, the Spaceflight Portal as not one but two mechanisms for keeping a To Do list, all without the aid of a Project. (If you can think of work for the Portal, feel free to add entries to either Portal:Spaceflight/Things you can do or Portal talk:Spaceflight/to do. Of course someone should probably add the entry: "Merge the Todo lists!" ;-) (Sdsds - Talk) 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the question remains: Why is it not a WikiProject? I think that if the people working on the portal were to start one to match the portal, some of the minor WikiProjects that make the Space Exploration subprojects a mess could be merged into it. It would be well organized, have a good portal, and there'd be no need for a separate Rocketry WikiProject or portal. — Pious7 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the "why" question. But the existence of a Project page doesn't automatically mean there is support for it. Maybe the reason is because a Project page would require upkeep. Could a WikiProject Space "task force" maintain the Spaceflight Portal? (Sdsds - Talk) 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment moved to #Portal Taskforce to encourage discussion. — Pious7 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The two to do lists both serve different functions - Portal:Spaceflight/Things you can do is supposed to be article-related, but it seems it is carrying a few portal-related to-dos, which belong on Portal talk:Spaceflight/to do, and should be removed. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. My bad.  Sorry! (Sdsds - Talk) 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for helping move the reorganization along. If the portal is somehow kept, I think that there should be a taskforce under the Solar System WikiProject to handle Sun-related articles and this portal, but I do think that it neither has sufficient interest nor enough articles for a taskforce and/or portal... — Pious7 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space-related portal reorganization 

message: When reading again: you speak about a portal of portals. If you start it, I'm in! (Besides I'm already a member of WikiProject Space, and if I'm lying by forgetfulness, then soon will be). Said: Rursus 12:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would probably work out better in traditional format (not tabbed) and built from the ground up. How does one get inactive portals deleted? And what approach would we do - take sections from various portals or have it done more traditionally? We might even need to make a taskforce under WikiProject space to work on portals. — Pious7TalkContribs 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. MER-C 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I made an example of how it could work on one tab, but I'm not sure if tabs would work and if they do work, they'd have to be redone from the beginning. It'd probably be more work to reformat the existing out-of-date and under-construction portal than to recreate it from deletion. — Pious7TalkContribs 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the example "Things you can do" tab! I do have a simmering pet peeve, though: it's about the reorganization into "sub-portals". Specifically, if one of the top-level sub-portals is "space exploration", then there isn't really any logical place for "spaceflight", which is about *all* uses of space, not just exploration. From my perspective, "space exploration" is just one of the things "spaceflight" is used for. (OK, I admit that's an overstatement, but I hope it gets the point across. Commercial uses of space aren't exploration!) So of course I want "spaceflight" to be the top-level sub-portal of the Space portal that includes "space exploration", "rocketry" and "human spaceflight" as sub-sub-portals.... (Sdsds - Talk) 23:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea would be for the portals to mirror the reorganization of the Space-related WikiProjects. Perhaps your suggestion should apply to the reorganized WikiProject layout as well? — Pious7TalkContribs 01:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that space flight isn't the same thing as space exploration actually, foremost because space is also explored from the surface of Earth. As regards to what is not astronomy and still space exploration, aurora may be a reasonable example. Disregarding non-science, such as telecom satellites, non-astronomical science is often performed in space, such as crystallizations requiring nongravity, and verifying the Casimir effect. Let's say we instead rename space exploration to Portal:Space science or something similar to widen the concept of space with regards to science?? Said: Rursus 21:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Space science" is a bit too general, though, and could probably even include Portal:Astronomy under it. — Pious7 23:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I asked the question directly at #Subportal or not? so we can hopefully get a consensus. — Pious7 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Space]]

message: I would be inclined to oppose the move from Portal:Spaceflight to Portal:Human spaceflight, as this defeats the object for which it was originally created. It was intended to cover both manned and unmanned flights, and I feel that this is what it should continue to do. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that there's no WikiProject Spaceflight to correspond with Portal:Spaceflight. Without a corresponding WikiProject, upkeep usually depends on one person (which is disadvantageous) and there isn't a good To Do. — Pious7 17:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem of a Portal without an exactly matching Project can be overcome. Specifically, the Spaceflight Portal as not one but two mechanisms for keeping a To Do list, all without the aid of a Project. (If you can think of work for the Portal, feel free to add entries to either Portal:Spaceflight/Things you can do or Portal talk:Spaceflight/to do. Of course someone should probably add the entry: "Merge the Todo lists!" ;-) (Sdsds - Talk) 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the question remains: Why is it not a WikiProject? I think that if the people working on the portal were to start one to match the portal, some of the minor WikiProjects that make the Space Exploration subprojects a mess could be merged into it. It would be well organized, have a good portal, and there'd be no need for a separate Rocketry WikiProject or portal. — Pious7 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the "why" question. But the existence of a Project page doesn't automatically mean there is support for it. Maybe the reason is because a Project page would require upkeep. Could a WikiProject Space "task force" maintain the Spaceflight Portal? (Sdsds - Talk) 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment moved to #Portal Taskforce to encourage discussion. — Pious7 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The two to do lists both serve different functions - Portal:Spaceflight/Things you can do is supposed to be article-related, but it seems it is carrying a few portal-related to-dos, which belong on Portal talk:Spaceflight/to do, and should be removed. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. My bad.  Sorry! (Sdsds - Talk) 18:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Spaceflight]]

message: One last issue of the portal was raised in the #Portal:Space discussion. Should Portal:Spaceflight be a subportal of Portal:Space exploration or should it just be under Portal:Space? It doesn't mean that much except organizationally. If under the "portal of portals" directly, however, it would probably be featured alongside Portal:Astronomy, Portal:Solar System, and Portal:Space exploration. — Pious7 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subportal or not?

message: Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sun. MER-C 12:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for helping move the reorganization along. If the portal is somehow kept, I think that there should be a taskforce under the Solar System WikiProject to handle Sun-related articles and this portal, but I do think that it neither has sufficient interest nor enough articles for a taskforce and/or portal... — Pious7 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Sun]]

message: Per the discussion on #Portal:Spaceflight, the consensus seems to be to keep it as-is. Would it then be easier to drop this part of the proposal and have rocketry be part of Portal:Spaceflight's coverage? — Pious7 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Rocketry]]

message: Moved from #Portal:Spaceflight discussion.
Good idea. I think that a taskforce under the coordinating WikiProject Space might be useful in maintaining all Space-related subportals (with the help of any related WikiProjects) and Portal:Space. This would keep things organized, somewhat standard, and give WikiProject Space another use. This could get all Space portals to featured status (it's not that hard - I got my first portal, Portal:Solar System, featured). Working on a portal requires skill in portal design, not specific knowledge of the Space subtopic, so putting the actual design element to a portal taskforce would probably be more efficient. — Pious7 00:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal Taskforce

message: The last major change is on the creation of Portal:Moon. This is rather simple: is there enough interest and material to create and maintain a portal for the Moon? — Pious7 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Portal:Moon]]

message: This will need to be updated to reflect the reorganization of Space-related portals. I think that the bottom three portals (Physics, Aviation, and Astrology) should stop being linked to altogether in favor of only showing the portals that are directly under the Space WikiProject, but this means that the structure of the page will have to change. — Pious7 19:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Space/Portals]]

message: :Old discussion here.
I have seen  used on some articles. In addition, when tagging pages for the Solar System WikiProject I used it to merge all Space-related WikiProject templates when there were other Space WikiProjects already there to prevent clutter. Should we just merge all of the assessment talk page templates into  for uniformity, especially if there's going to be an overlap? — Pious7 18:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that people agreed to merge all of the assessments.  I also do not think that merging assessments for articles that deal with astronomy with assessments for articles that deal with manned spaceflight is quite appropriate.  In cases where multiple WikiProjects overlap, it would not hurt to have assessments from multiple WikiProjects anyway.  Dr. Submillimeter 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like the template in areas where the scope covers many (3+). It's better than the alternative - a multi-WikiProject drop-down box that prevents people from seeing the assessment quality. As for the template itself, it keeps individual settings for WikiProjects with importance ratings, and that's all that should be different between projects. If an article is B-Class, it's B-Class, regardless of its WikiProjects. Often, e.g. on planets, almost all of the Space-related WikiProjects will cover at least some aspect of the article. — Pious7 18:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Assessment Templates 

message: No edits have been made to this page since 2007-05-31. Are there any active plans, or can we call this one archived? MER-C 13:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss any further concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space. (sdsds - talk) 06:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we done here?