Talk:Space architecture
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It 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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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)
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)
- 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)
Origins
Completely unsourced. I'm thinking of downgrading this from C to Start-class. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Looks like it still meets the C-Class criteria. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
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
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.
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) |
Brushes and vacuum
"These dust particles can't be brushed away in a vacuum". Why not? Midgley (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
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)
Source/Notability of images
The structural diagrams in the gallery aren't particular, specific designs or approaches - rather they appear to be hobbyist designs by a single person. Are they at all useful for the discussion? 58.6.253.196 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)