Main pageDiscussionMembersAssessmentArticle alertsRecognized contentPortalNaming ConventionsTemplatesEditor of the Year


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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Agreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane@4throck: Thanks for your comments! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 22:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Sure! As I said, I'll help where possible! 4throck (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]

GA Reassessment notice[edit]

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 • TalkContribs 15:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying us! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 19:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:MARS (missile)#Requested move 23 March 2022[edit]

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)[reply]

Discord group link has expired[edit]

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)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources[edit]

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

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

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)[reply]

Rocket Lab[edit]

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)[reply]

Please check Talk:Galactic Energy[edit]

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)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

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 |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), 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 ((WikiProject banner shell)), 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 ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom 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)[reply]

INTA-300 Infobox (fixed)[edit]

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)[reply]

I fixed it by changing the talk page Saltq (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Katyusha rocket launcher[edit]

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)[reply]

SpaceX Starship has an RFC[edit]

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)[reply]

Engine infoboxes[edit]

Combustion engines are used in many applications - Aerospace, automotive, marine and industrial. Some articles on them have infobox templates; ((infobox aircraft engine)) (aviation), ((Infobox engine)) (automotive) and ((Infobox rocket engine)) (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)[reply]

Zhuque-2 reaches orbit[edit]

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)[reply]

100% agree (edit: it already has one) Redacted II (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested for Edward Forman[edit]

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)[reply]

New article: Flame deflector[edit]

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! ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 09:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VLS (Brazil)[edit]

Hi! Sometime ago I developed the VLS related articles VLS-1 V01, VLS-1 V02 and the expansion of the VLS-1 V03. Would be great if the people in this project could check and perfect it - and, if possible, find any English-language resources on those launches (or even translate those articles into more languages). Pinging @DPdH, Rod57, Redacted II, and Miralitt: who might be interested. Thanks, Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of work on the articles.
A lot of it needs to be reworded, but I think overall these articles have a lot of potential. Redacted II (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed VLS-1 V01, it looks good! I just made some minor grammatical changes, and I'll probably go over the other articles later today. I would just say during the "background and goals" section you may want to do something with the part that says "The launch cost R$16 million (US$ 14842415.29) and aimed to show potential customers the reliability of the Brazilian rocket. For a launch cost of US$6.5 million, it would be cheaper than the U.S. rocket Pegasus for US$15 million." The mixture of units is a bit confusing, and I might try to standard all of those prices to 1997 Reals. Miralitt (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Miralitt The "R$16 million" is already the 1997 value. The mixture is more due to the sources: the newspaper articles (and even nowadays online articles) mixes a lot U$D and R$ when talking about the project. @Redacted II Thanks! For my part, it would be great to develop the two launch events and the accidental ignition (V03) in deep, since there are a lot for the background and the aftermath (the inquiries/investigation for the 2003 disaster may deserve an ever deeper development, due to the loss of lives). On primary sources, there's the 2003 Accident Report (but only in Portuguese) that I've cited in the sources. I'm pretty sure that there were public Reports for the 1997 and 1999 launches, but there are nowhere to be found online. Those flights are almost never explored in books (it seems that last year was released an indie book on the 2003 Accident, but it is quite expensive), and the 2003 disaster is only remembered in annual superficial articles (last year Estadão released a 3 episode podcast on the accident, which had access to confidential military documents, but I don't know how to use it as a source). For an even earlier (1950s) rocketry project, there's the Félix I. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you all think/agree that the first 2 VLS articles and the Félix I pass the Notability requirements? Erick Soares3 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that they probably do meet the Notability requirements - it looks like there's a lot of external sources on the subjects, and all three seem to be relatively important, especially being at the beginning of Brazil's space program. Miralitt (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% yes Redacted II (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miralitt and Redacted II: thanks! Do you have any suggestion on how those articles may be expanded? On English-language sources, there are this one: is quite good, but I've noticed some mistakes when it talks about the 1997 and 1999 flights (I couldn't find any relevant English-language article from the time [1999-2003]). Some days ago I sent a FOI request on PD (or "free to reuse and share") images, videos, and reports/documents from the VLS program and its flights, but it may take almost a month before any reply. Erick Soares3 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the red links.
Maybe add more details on the desired trajectory of the launch (similar to what is in the IFT-1 and IFT-2 articles). Redacted II (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The red links are part of a template. If the article exists on the English Wikipedia, then the article will be correctly linked. If it does not, it will link to the foreign-language article - in this case, the Portugese one. You can read the template page for more information. I believe that the red links should stay for now, since those articles do not exist on the English Wikipedia. Miralitt (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II: the page 13 (25 on the PDF) from the V03 Report has it - but not for any specific mission, but the "desired scenario" in general. Since I'm not sure if the image (and the entire report) falls under PD-Brazil-Gov, it would be the case of creating a table? I'm my attempt looking what happened in the hours before T-0 for the 1997 and 99 launches (since the Starship pages starts at T-2hrs). I also agree with @Miralitt on keeping the red links for now. Erick Soares3 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just found an article with a deep description of the VLS launch profile (page 18 to 22). Using the Starship one as a template, I will attempt making something. Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II VLS-1_V01#Flight_profile and VLS-1_V02#Flight_profile. I'm not sure if this timeline would be applicable in the VLS-1 V03, since they never got to T-0. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good Redacted II (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend starting as close to T-0 as possible, since the vehicle didn't have any propellants to load. Redacted II (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II For much, in the 1997 flight they had to manually open a "Mechanical Safety Device" right before T-0, so the electricity could reach the igniters, but I couldn't find how long before T-0 it happened. Erick Soares3 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redacted II and Miralitt: some updates: I received a FOI reply on the Félix I and unfortunately, the Instituto Militar de Engenharia don't have any archived historical material on this project. I've cropped 3 newspaper images from the project (somewhat good quality, but is better than nothing), since in my opinion they all fall under PD-Brazil-Photo. On the VLS, I should receive a reply from the Brazilian Space Agency until March 21. Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocketry Stubs[edit]

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. Miralitt (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]