Talk: NASA
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
An event mentioned in this article is an October 1 selected anniversary. ---
TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I have 500 or so pages of 1960s era educational material regarding NASA satellites. Including several fold out posters. rather than trying to sell this on ebay I thought I would offer it up to you folks putting in the effort to maintain the NASA section of wikipedia. Please leave me a message on my user talk page if your interested. Hopefully this material will make it online in some form useful to wikipedia. Thanks for the good work guys --Alkivar 06-AUG-2004
- Interesting! Is it public domain? If it is, you may want to consider putting the information on wikisource. --NeuronExMachina 07:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure, but would assume since it was released for educational purposes and because NASA is a governmental agency it should be. That and the fact the information is 40 years or so old and should be darn near to public domain anyways. --Alkivar
- Putting it on wikisource is a great idea. --Dumbo1 17:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would like to remind you that 95% of world population have no clue what these US state acronyms mean. Could you please expand them to full form and link them to appropriate articles ? --Taw
- Done. --Brion VIBBER
Just wanted to remind the recent editor that it's ok to leave wiki links red. You don't need to change them all to working links. Astudent 06:31, 2003 Oct 9 (UTC)
A link to whatever the Chinese call their space agency or info on the taikonaut program would be useful. --zandperl
I just created a redirect on National Aeronautics and Space Administration (not sure if I did it right, please check) to NASA. But when I was looking at the Wikipedia:Redirect info page, it says redirects should go the other way, from the abbreviation (NASA) to the full name (National...). Someone else please check and make necessary changes. Thanks. --Zandperl 00:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps a friendly passing sysop could delete National Aeronautics and Space Administration and move NASA to that title? Audin 01:01, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- This page is at NASA because it is much better known as NASA instead of National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In fact, NASA is a specific example (along with radar) given on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) for this exception to the general convention. Another example would be SETI. --Minesweeper 00:29, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree with that being a good reason to leave it at NASA...since a redirect from NASA to National Aeronautics and Space Administration would both help people who don't know what NASA means find the article AND inform them of the meaning. Anyway, it doesn't matter really. The article has already cycled once from NASA to National Aeronautics and Space Administration and back again.--Audin 02:11, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I twidled around a bit with the layout, as it looked rather suckmatic. I realise 'history' isn't a great section-header, but I needed to move the TOC up to make more efficient use of space (sic). The NASA logo still looks a bit off-kilter, mostly because the source image itself doesn't have the blue circle centred (and the CSS to fix that isn't really browser-portable). If I have time I'll overwrite it with a centred (and perhaps a bit smaller) one. Fundamentally the page is never going to look nice until there's more text. -- Finlay McWalter 23:10, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
OK - I've really tried to improve this page - please feel free (obviously) to improve as you can - any suggestions for me then please post them here or on my talk page. Tompagenet 17:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
I think we need to add more content related to the fact that NASA doesn't just do space exploration. -Joseph 15:50, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
- ditto that -- not much on earth-orbiting space stuff, either. All buck rogers. NASA certainly does not neglect the air part. It just ain't sexy enuf to get our attention -- or Congress', unfortunately. 24.75.67.173 19:10, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) BTW -- move contents to full name article and redirect NASA to there -- is my vote.
- unfortunately nasa itself ignores the 'air' part far too much. -- Audin 03:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Abbreviation vs. Full name
Any way we can put this up to a vote on which form we want to have it as? I personally completely disagree with leaving it as 'NASA' -Joseph 19:55, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
Just announce the vote here with some options and an end time, vote for as many options as you prefer. To get enough people to see it, it's worth mentioning on a few of the Wikipedia:Community portal subpages. (I have not mentioned it elsewhere yet.) -- ke4roh 10:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
What should be the title of this article? Indicate your vote(s) by signing your name under the appropriate title(s). Vote for as many as you wish. Voting will end September 10, 2004 10:06 GMT.
NASA:
- ke4roh 10:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Adrian Pingstone 09:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Pedant 19:36, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)NASA 17 million hits on google... National Aeronautics and Space Administration 24 hundred hits on google. NASA calls itself NASA...Pedant
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
- ke4roh 10:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Audin 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Alkivar 18:11, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) -- WITH REDIRECT FROM NASA
- I would rather see NASA as a redirect to the full title, as well. kmccoy (talk) 01:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Jord 16:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
- Audin 14:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
NPOV dispute: comments
Regarding NPOV, here are a few points:
- The Space Race was composed of numerous races: first artificial satellite, first human in space, first probe on the moon, first human on the moon, etc.
- this information belongs on a page entitled "The Space Race" not on NASA which should solely deal with the exploits of the NASA research flights/projects and space missions. Alkivar 01:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Words such as "near-legendary" and "groundbreaking" are opinion.
- There are many references to public opinion. Public opinion is important, but many NASA missions--both unmanned and manned--have been completed successfully without much fanfare, and this doesn't diminish the success of the mission.
- agreed but this is not something to cause NPOV argument Alkivar 01:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- There is a bias towards unmanned space missions in the entire article, but most notably in the list of "NASA space missions" where there is a very short list of manned space missions and a very long list of unmanned space missions. The list of manned missions should be expanded, and perhaps both lists moved to a separate page: List of NASA space missions.
- and how is this an NPOV argument? do you know what NPOV actually means? Alkivar 01:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Here is my explanation: where two subjects are of equal importance, a small number of facts about Subject 1 and a large number of facts about Subject 2 means a bias towards Subject 2. "While all facts might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased." -- Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Astudent 04:32, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
- thats not exactly how i interpret it. if Subject 1 REPLACES Subject 2 to the articles detriment then i would call it NPOV. For example in an article about the 2004 US presidential election if it was 100% john kerry and 0% bush thats NPOV as its excluding one to BENEFIT the other... in this case we're not excluding Subject 2 to benefit Subject 1 ... we're not EXCLUDING anything. We just havent had anyone ADD it yet. thats my 2 cents worth anyway Alkivar 04:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to your point of view, but if the article on the 2004 election was 90% Kerry and 10% Bush, it would still be NPOV. I'm not saying that the article should be exactly 50-50 (just as feminists do not say that the gender ratio of employment should be exactly 50-50), but it should be roughly half-half. Astudent 14:31, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
- There is no description of NASA's aeronautical research, eg. scramjet.
Astudent 01:43, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is a duplicate post. The discussion "It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration" has already noted the bias towards space. Astudent 14:31, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
