This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think we need to standardise whether to use the spelling "Cosmos" or "Kosmos" for satellites of that series. I've been using "Kosmos" as it is the preferred spelling per WP:RUS, and I feel that its conformity with that guideline would make it the better transliteration to standardise on. --GW… 06:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Given the lack of objections, I have started to implement this. --GW… 14:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Unmanned spaceflight articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Unmanned spaceflight banner has been removed but there has been no reply to the related talk page message, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#WikiProject_Unmanned_spaceflight. Sorry but I think Human Spaceflight and Unmanned spaceflight are crippled by restricting them to the Space template because their direct parent's scope already includes theirs in entirety. What is the point in tagging a project with a Space tag and both USF and SF? If you tag something as Unmanned spaceflight really you should also check Spaceflight, in every single instance. As I have said elsewhere all the Space projects and their scopes, as they are currently, make no structural sense. If someone wants to develop articles on USF, as the parent project both includes all of its scope and has more members, people are always going to use SF instead. USF is a poor relation stuck in a granny-annex, it can never recruit or hold on to members the way things are.

And for that matter why have other stand-alone banner templates like WikiProject Astronomy and Wkiproject Solar System's not been removed? Indeed WP Astronomy doesn't use the Space template. Can we not figure out a better way to structure Space-related projects? ChiZeroOne (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space/2010 Reorganisation regarding the future of WikiProject Space and its child projects. The discussion is aimed at defining the roles of projects, and improving the activity and coordination of the projects. The input of members of this project is requested as it is one which may be affected by the issue. --GW… 22:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this task force was merged. Two of its project pages are about to be de-categorised or deleted:

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unmanned spaceflight articles by quality log

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Unmanned spaceflight articles by quality statistics

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_4#Category:Unmanned_spaceflight_task_force. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as ((citation)), ((cite journal)), ((cite web))...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=((arxiv|0123.4567)) (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id=((JSTOR|0123456789)) and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

((cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id=((para|id|____)) ))

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)