Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry

message: In my opinion, we should collaborate on an article to revive this project. This could be any really, as long as we are actually doing something. My suggestion is SpaceX Starship (boo! self promotion) because it is popular and currently being very actively working on. The article can also be another lighthouse to guide editors, like Space Shuttle article but for New Space. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @CactiStaccingCrane Thanks for the suggestion. For now, I think that we should first assess all the rocketry articles. We can also work on Draft:RFA One which I see you have already edited. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Got an invite to come here, so let me give my input. In my experience short, iterative improvements work best. For example, not long ago I added crew capacity to many space capsule articles. I think it improved Wikipedia more than working on a single article! So I'd welcome more generic to-do lists and guidelines that apply to many articles, than just focusing on a single one. Anyway, I'll keep an eye here and help where possible! 4throck (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my two cents: I agree a lot on your opinions(2000+ edits in SpaceX Starship and beyond), but, in my experience, I found that setting concrete, centralized, and fun goal works the best. For me?  FA Starship. What about the project? I don't really know. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @CactiStaccingCrane@4throck: Thanks for your comments! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @4throck: Also, if you don't mind could you add your user name to the list of members at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry/Members? Thanks. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! As I said, I'll help where possible! 4throck (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @4throck: Just a request, you don't have to do this at all if you don't want: may you review SpaceX Starship? It doesn't need to be very comprehensive, even a comment is very worthwhile for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: SpaceX Starship has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 15:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for notifying us! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Reassessment notice 

message: There is a requested move discussion at Talk:MARS (missile)#Requested move 23 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move at [[Talk:MARS (missile)#Requested move 23 March 2022]] 

message: Anyone has new link for that? Might need to update it on the page as the link no longer works for us to join.
LengthyMer (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discord group link has expired 

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources 

message: There is an open request for comment at Talk:Rocket Lab regarding how to describe the nationality of the company. Input from knowledgeable space flight editors would be appreciated. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Rocket Lab

message: Please indicate your preference on the creation of the now-redirect Ceres-1 at Talk:Galactic Energy#Request for the creation of Ceres-1. Timothytyy (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check [[Talk:Galactic Energy]] 

message: Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a  parameter to , which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to , and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass  a new  parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project-independent quality assessments 

message: I recently added an infobox to INTA-300, but I don't know how to remove the article from "Category:Rocketry articles needing infoboxes". Can anyone tell me how to remove the article from the category or remove it themselves? Saltq (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it by changing the talk page Saltq (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTA-300 Infobox (fixed)

message: Katyusha rocket launcher has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[Katyusha rocket launcher]] 

message: :SpaceX Starship, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:SpaceX Starship]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]

message: Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates;  (aviation),  (automotive) and  (spaceflight). Wikipedia's wider community has a consensus to merge infobox templates where possible. Various aircraft infobox templates are being merged, and the question has arisen, should the aero engine infobox be merged in with them, or would it be better to merge and extend the existing engine infoboxes? There is an ongoing discussion here , which you are invited to join. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 05:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine infoboxes 

message: The first methalox rocket has reached orbit! I think it's time Zhuque-2 is given a separate article. What do you guys think?  Dankluxuries (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% agree (edit: it already has one) Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zhuque-2 reaches orbit 

message: Hi, I was hired on a freelancing site to improve the article on American rocketry pioneer Edward S. Forman. As a paid editor, I am relegated to make suggestions on the talk page rather than directly updating the article. Could you please go over my suggestions here:Talk:Edward Forman#Article improvement suggestions and help update the article? Sabih omar 08:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback requested for [[Edward Forman]]

message: I created this new article since we didn't cover this topic. I've tried to keep it "general" in order to cover all kinds of flame deflecting systems (pits, trenches, diverters, and even "active" systems like SpaceX's new system for Starship). Feedback and assessment would be appreciated!    talk 09:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article: [[Flame deflector]] 

message: I've reduced :Category:Rocketry stubs down to just 300 articles! However, we still have a long ways to go in order to get that down to 0 - if you are interested in helping, please consider looking through some stub articles to see if you could expand any/merge them into an existing article. 
Category:Rocketry stubs
Miralitt (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rocketry Stubs