This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This template 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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I entirely agree. I tried various schemes, but I couldn't get anything I was happy with, partly because there were so many overlaps. Hence I have fallen back on vague divisions that I can't precisely describe with subheadings. If anyone has any great ideas then please feel entirely free to implement them! Matt 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC).
Are all those "List of"s necessary, or would it look less cluttered without them?
E.g. [[List of human spaceflight programs|Human spaceflight programs]]{{·}} .
—wwoods 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; have reformatted template along these lines. Thanks for suggestion, David Kernow(talk) 04:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the top level needs to be just 'space' lists and timelines, some of the things like geosats aren't really exploration, and neither is space tourism.WolfKeeper 11:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you intend to include astronomy-related articles as well? That would make it a much larger template! (sdsds - talk) 14:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the 'Dead astronauts' link to read 'Spaceflight-related human fatalities' which better reflects the page linked. 'Dead astronauts' could technically relate to all deceased astronauts which is misleading in this context. Niki2006 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on with this section? It lists the Indian/European/Japanese/Iranian space agencies, which are all neither lists nor timelines obviously.
If it's supposed to list major space agencies for some reason, the European and Indian space agencies links link to specific plans while the Japanese/Iranian link to the agency's page.
If for some reason you with to list the major space agencies, I suggest they all link to the agency itself and that it'll list the major agencies, that is the European one, NASA, Russian/Soviet, JAXA, Indian and Chinese. KimiNewt (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing those for now, I really don't see them fitting here. KimiNewt (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Someone did it just as I was going to, thanks. KimiNewt (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed Space Tourism to Private Spaceflight Companies. It may not be a perfect designation and has been debated as nauseum on the list's discussion page, but space tourism is far too narrow a name to describe the list itself. Very few commercial space companies are involved in any way in space tourism. Fewer still consider it a central focus of their business model. aremisasling (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
