Talk:Space architecture

Spaceflight C‑class Top‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture C‑class

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scope of article

Concerns over the scope of the article have been raised, namely regarding space-based or supporting infrastructure. Neither space-based infrastructure for ground purposes, like cell phone satellites and spy satellites, nor ground-based infrastructure for space purposes, like research and manufacturing processes, are covered in this article beyond brief mention. James Doehring (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

The section on etymology seems out-of-place and unnecessary, though some of the points such as the discussion of the distinction between "Space Architecture" as the more general or as the more specific form of architecture seem warranted. Can anyone give a good reason not to get rid of most of this section?129.92.250.45 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I came here to say just this. Let's give it another week to see if anyone responds. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

Completely unsourced. I'm thinking of downgrading this from C to Start-class. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Looks like it still meets the C-Class criteria. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Verne interior.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Verne interior.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Verne interior.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brushes and vacuum

"These dust particles can't be brushed away in a vacuum". Why not? Midgley (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Galactic Ad?

As Much as I'm excited to see Virgin Galactic's private space tourism project take off, the section on this article seems like an ad. 12.203.226.194 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]