Talk:Human spaceflight

message: I would primarily like to propose the addition of a table to the article concerning which this talk page remains; in particular, the "Milestones" section primarily remains particularly compatible with the addition of a table. In particular, I would like to provide a proposal for the categorical division of the table, primarily for the purpose of elucidation with regards to the topic of the section; within this proposal, the table would primarily include a description of the accomplishment, the individuals responsible, the nationality of the aforementioned individuals or, alternatively, the nation responsible for the accomplishment, the date and comments, with the final section primarily remaining utilised for the provision of information concerning the vehicles deployed. Upon the reception of an affirmative response to this suggestion, I shall deploy it with immediacy, within all probability within the following week; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Proposal For The Addition Of A Table 

message: The National spacefaring attempts table list a number of abandoned programs (2 Chinese, 3 Japanese, 1 Iraq). Even more confusing is that the ESA (not a nation) programs are in this table. For some reason the USA is mentioned twice (sub-orbital and orbital). Then there are a number of planed programs. And for some reason other successful programs/attempts are not mentioned (shuttle/Voskhod/Gemini). All in all it is totally unclear to me what this table want to tell the reader using as it seems random inclusion criteria. If it stays like this it might be best to remove it. 31.21.58.243 (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  National spacefaring attempts 

message: This section is a mess and should be re-written, as it currently stands there are no clear criteria of who should be included. We have already List of space travelers by nationality and the list here is a sample of the larger list and of the 38 nations that have sent astronauts only a biased sample is listed. A better approach would be to show a statistics of the country of origin of astronauts and/or arrange by space program to highlight somewhat independent achievements of independent space programs.  I suggest to re-work the section and trim it down or arrange it by achievements of national space programs (a Chinese person reaching space with the Chinese space program is more relevant than an Indian astronaut on a Russian capsule; similarly the list contains the first women spacewalk but not the first man to do it?). --hroest 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:   By nationality or sex - rework section? 

message: The caption for the image Human spaceflight#/media/File:Soyuz TMA-7 spacecraft2edit1.jpg makes no sense?
What does "Soyuz, most serial spacecraft" mean?
I searched google and only found references to this page
Luka600 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soyuz image caption makes no sense 

message: Some of the new terminology being used seems to be a polarizing and somewhat controversial topic among space enthusiasts in this day and age.
I also realize this is NASA's new, preferred expression more so than that of Wikipedians who happen to frequently write about NASA and space exploration.
While I can appreciate the use of "crewed" (and also sometimes "piloted") as a more gender-inclusive version of "manned,"
it does also sound kind of excessive in a lot of respects.
Even during the latter half of the 20th century, female pilots and workers/scientists at NASA still used "Manned," whether or not they regarded it as sexist. Should manned be permanently and almost entirely replaced by crewed? Maybe not.
While I'm more than in favor of bringing in more diverse groups of people to organizations like NASA and elsewhere,
I really think this (gender identity/identity politics) issue should be left alone. Also, while NASA is largely doing the right thing to appeal to more (especially marginalized) groups of people, I personally think they are making a bit too big a deal about this, especially when NASA should still be focused on endeavors like cooperation with groups such as ESA, CSA and JSA, as well as competition with the Chinese Space Program and what's left of the Russian Space Program. Wiscipidier (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The place to discuss this would be at WT:MOS rather than at this article's talk page, seeing as MOS:GNL currently says References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: , , , , , , , , not  or . Direct quotations and proper nouns that use gendered words should not be changed, like . This appears to be the result of a 2019 RfC (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight), which I would suggest that you read before deciding whether to raise the issue anew. TompaDompa (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: TompaDompa, thanks for the tip. I’ll move it there promptly Wiscipidier (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manned vs. Crewed/Piloted Spaceflight