Contents

Talk:LICIACube

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox changes[edit]

@CRS-20: Is there any reasonable explaination as to why you reverted the change to this article where the more appropriate individual spacecraft infobox was placed in lieu of the less appropriate spaceflight infobox, or is this just yet another one of your mysterious, unexplained reverts that you just do? — Molly Brown (talk) 07:41 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@CRS-20: You've once again reverted my edits without any explaination. Can you please explain your reverts, please? I'm only asking this one more time. — Molly Brown (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No individual status for this satellite. CRS-20 (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: What does that even mean? — Molly Brown (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: Can you please provide a better explaination as to what your point of view / opinion is? I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this satellite having "no individual status". What do you mean by that? — Molly Brown (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceflight Infobox remains Spaceflight Infobox CRS-20 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: But why, is what I’m asking. I’m not asking you to restate what you reverted, I’m asking you to explain why you reverted. I don’t think I can possibly make it any more clearer than that. — Molly Brown (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They reverted my edit as well without explanation. I've asked them on their talk page but so far they haven't replied. Nigos (t c) 05:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: Could you explain why you reverted my edit to this article? I believe that the former infobox was more appropriate as LICIACube is not an entirely separate mission: it's part of the Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission, which correctly uses the {{Infobox spaceflight}} template. LICIACube is more similar to Ingenuity (helicopter) and Perseverance rover, which are not separate missions from Mars 2020 and so warrant a {{Infobox individual space vehicle}} template instead. Thanks Nigos (t c) 12:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigos: It seems they have actually bothered to say something intelligible this time, even if it is very brief and vague: "You remove information." I'll take a stab and guess that they are referring to the significantly less stuff in the infobox compared to the incredly long and cluttered spaceflight infobox. Perhaps I could tinker with the individual space vehicle infobox to make some sort of satisfactory compromise here, since there could be a point made here about how there can be a bit more information in the individual space vehicle infobox. — Molly Brown (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, thanks! Nigos (t c) 01:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20 and Nigos: I've made a proof of concept for a version of the infobox that includes COSPAR ID, SATCAT, and a deployment date, among other wholesale changes that would be more relevant for other articles. I've provided an example in the documentation of how it would be used on this LICIACube article. What do you two think? — Molly Brown (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, it contains information that would be useful to include Nigos (t c) 05:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CRS-20: Last chance to voice any objections you may have. I am starting to become impatient, and will go ahead with the changes anyway if you do not respond soon. — Molly Brown (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Unsinkable Molly Brown: I think they’re not a native English speaker, hence their weird wording and lack of communication, probably should point them to frwiki instead. Nigos (talk | contribs) 07:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigos: All this havoc and strife inflicted on so many English Wikipedia editors... and they're not even fluent in English? That sounds a bit too crazy to believe, so I'll take that with a grain of salt. — Molly Brown (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Unsinkable Molly Brown: Perhaps they use google translate, that will explain why the language they use is so weird. That’s if we agf though. Nigos (talk | contribs) 08:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you should just go for it, they are not so responsive. Maybe I can try to work out a solution with them. Message for them in French over here, Nigos (talk | contribs) 14:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]