Talk:Encyclopedia Astronautica: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:40, 17 June 2021

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spaceflight Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy Stub‑class Bottom‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability Discussion

This article has been tagged for {{notability}} issues since October 2007, without any commentary. A similar article (which interlinks to this article), on Jonathan's Space Report‎, seems to have the same issue but I've not tagged it (nor was I the original notability tagger for this E.A. article. I haven't researched Encyclopedia Astronautica sufficently yet to have a vote in the notability discussion, but there needs to be a notability discussion soon, else the tag ought to be removed and an {{expand}} tag added. - Ageekgal (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion. I have changed the tag. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a space historian, let me say Mark Wade's site and Jonathan's site are very notable. For scholarly references, it's always a good idea to check web sources, but I have mostly found astronautix.com to be useful and reliable and a real public service.

Given that porn stars have their own Wikipedia pages, it's really a shame when someone suggests deleting an article about a productive and useful work like Mark Wade's website. DonPMitchell (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source

How reliable is Encyclopedia Astronautica considered as a source for Wikipedia articles? It seems very good, but also self-published by Mark Wade. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wade doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources; but it appears this website is relatively well-respected, and is cited by several reliable sources (such as books, and NASA itself has referred others to the website). So I would say citing Encyclopedia Astronautica as a source is better than citing no source at all, but this information can often be found elsewhere; so using this website as a source should probably be avoided. Mlm42 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the American Astronautical Society's History Committee I have found errors in his work, but no more, and none more egregious, than ones I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. --Neopeius (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's back

The site is back up; updating the entry to reflect this.Fishing Chimp (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λらむだogosπぱいraxis} 01:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 :Mark Wade doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's policy on [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]; but it appears this website is relatively well-respected, and is cited by several reliable sources (such as books, and NASA itself has referred others to the website). So I would say citing Encyclopedia Astronautica as a source is better than citing no source at all, but this information can often be found elsewhere; so using this website as a source should probably be avoided. [[User:Mlm42|Mlm42]] ([[User talk:Mlm42|talk]]) 20:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+::Mark Wade is a reliable source, per the [https://astronautical.org/awards/ordway/ American Astronautical Society's History Committee] I have found errors in his work, but no more, and none more egregious, than ones I've found in "reliable" sources including encyclopedias and the NSSDC. --[[User:Neopeius|Neopeius]] ([[User talk:Neopeius|talk]]) 16:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 == It's back ==