text:
Talk:Leo Wyatt

Untitled

 * Nutty, if somewhat funny, profile of a "former whitelighter and now Elder of the Charmed Ones," who does all sorts of incredible things. Definitely not encyclopedic.  Moncrief 19:24, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote. Apparently this is a character from the TV series Charmed. RadicalBender 19:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * If you made me king, I'd delete because this is a minor character in a TV show - not what I think of as encyclopedic. But compared to others that are routinely kept, it's no worse. Keep but post to clean-up so the link to the TV show is obvious. (Do we have a naming convention that would help?) Rossami 20:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added text to make it clear where he comes from. —Frecklefoot 19:56, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've already deleted this once because it read like patent nonsense and had no context as to what it all meant.  As it's from charmed, I'd say merge and redirect with Charmed Graham  :) 21:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep now. Tempshill 23:16, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wiki is not paper. Saul Taylor 08:48, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep.Chris Perry, Piper Halliwell(-Wyatt), Darryl Morris created by the same user are fictional characters from the same show (and need cleaning up). They could well be redirects to Charmed, but I have a feeling that various fans will keep recreating these pages even if they are deleted. Might as well let them have them.-- Decumanus 18:07, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Characters are encyclopedic; we probably have an article for every single minor character in Harry Potter, I don't see how this is different - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:40, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's room in Wikipedia for well-done articles about fictional characters.  RickK 06:36, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. But like other Charmed character articles... it is in major need of tune-up (right now it reads like a disjointed list of trivia tidbits.) AquaWarlock Jan 31st, 2005
 * I vote to keep it as Leo is a very important character to the series, much like Spike or Angel to the Buffy series. The page description does need a re-vamp though. Artemisboy 18:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fictional chronokineticist
When did Leo have the power to control time?? I'm not sure I remember, was it when he was an Avatar.--NeilEvans 16:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume this is referring to the episode that he told the sisters he was an Avatar, was almost killed by the potion, and then reversed time to undo things. Although I was defniitely under the impression that this was done more by "them" than by him specifically, but if I remember correctly at the start of the episode he did affect a minor reversal (of a few minutes) without even meaning to, so I guess the category could apply here, though it's rather thin. --Maelwys 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as an Avatar he could manipulate time.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tense?
The article speaks as if Leo is still a whitelighter. "As a whitelighter/elder, Leo has the ability to orb (teleport in bright lights) to many places. He has a telepathic sense of location and of hearing his charges (those he guides) called sensing and can heal them. He is practically immortal, but he can die from an arrow of a darklighter, as can all other whitelighters." Shouldn't we change this? I won't until I get some ohers to ok the idea.~ Silence_Knight

~ Well actually if you want to get really techinacal it would have to change to past tense because he is no longer a whitelighter not elder nor avatar. He is a mortal.Jessnotdean 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already been changed to past tense.--NeilEvans 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha then me stupid! sorry to waste your time

Full name
I was just gonna revert it back to Leo, but thought I'd assume good faith and ask for a citation for it. It's stated in the edit summary that the name is spoken in the series, so it should be easy to cite the episode it occurs in.--NeilEvans 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Revert if you wish, I don't really care. I cannot cite the episode (don't have the DVDs) but I distinctly recall either Piper or Paige referring to him as Leonardo (possibly the episode dealing with his Army days?). --  Huntster  T • @ • C 20:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It is Leonardo, but it doesn't really matter as he is referrred to as Leo. - Piper [ The Piper Halliwell 22:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC) ]

 * Certainly a good point, but I suppose it is irrelevant since I added a citation for the full name a while ago. -- Huntster  T • @ • C 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 * In "Show Ghouls," the referenced episode, Piper and Leo are planning a family trip to Italy. Piper is practicing Italian, and it's in this context that she calls him "Leonardo." I always took that to mean that she was calling him by the Italian version of his name, not as an indication that Leonardo was his full name. So I'm deleting it. If anyone can find a reference that definitively indicates that his full name is Leonardo, you're welcome to add it back in. ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:LeoWhitelighter.jpg
File:LeoWhitelighter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FUN FACT: While it is true that charmed and it's characters are fictious in nature. It also seems that while surfing the internet several non-magical, non-angelic types-human beings possess the same names of Piper Halliwell and Leo Wyatt. While these human beings who bear the same names as the fictious charmed characters Leo Wyatt and Piper Halliwell are in no way affiliated with the show charmed nor to my knowledge have never been used as the basis for the fictious characters of Piper and Leo. The same individuals who bear the same names as the fictious charmed characters Piper and Leo, range in ages from 18-60 years of age and can be found living throughout various parts of the U.S. and even in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.53.58 (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Appearances
What episode did Brian Krause join the opening cast of the show?--Meraculas (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Leo Wyatt


text:
Antoine Christophe Merlin

Antoine Christophe Merlin (13 September 1762 in Thionville, Moselle – September 1833 in Paris) was a member of several legislative bodies during the era of the French Revolution. He is usually called Merlin de Thionville (Merlin of Thionville) to distinguish him from Philippe-Antoine Merlin de Douai.

Life
He was born at Thionville, the son of a procureur in the bailliage of Thionville. After studying theology, he began a career in law, and in 1788 was an avocat at the parlement of Metz. In 1790 he was elected municipal officer of Thionville, and was sent by the department of Moselle to the Legislative Assembly. On 23 October 1791 he moved and carried the institution of a committee of surveillance, of which he became a member. It was he who proposed the law sequestrating the property of the émigrés, and he took an important part in the Demonstration of 20 June 1792 and in the revolution of 10 August of the same year.

He was elected deputy to the National Convention, and pressed for the execution of Louis XVI, but a mission to the army prevented his attending the trial. He displayed great bravery in the defence of Mainz. He took part in the Thermidorian Reaction which brought about the fall of Robespierre, and was appointed to the Committee of General Security on 31 July 1794. He sat in the Council of Five Hundred under the Directory, and at the Coup of 18 Fructidor (4 September 1797) demanded the deportation of certain republican members. In 1798 he ceased to be a member of the Council of Five Hundred, and was appointed director-general of posts, being sent subsequently to organize the Army of Italy. He retired into private life at the proclamation of the Consulate, and lived in retirement under the Consulate and the First French Empire.

Bibliografie

 * 1828-1830 - Questions de droit qui se présentent le plus fréquemment dans les tribunaux. Tome premier, a.-app.; Tome deuxième, app-ban.; Tome troisième, bel.-com.; Tome quatrième, com.-cur.; Tome cinquième, dat.-dom.; Tome sixième, don.-epo.; Tome septième, err.-gru.; Tome huitième, hér.-ins.; Tome neuvième, ins.-mar.; Tome dixième, mar.-nul.; Tome onzième, obl.-pré.; Tome douzième, pre.-ren.; Tome treizième, ren.-rét.; Tome quatorzième, réu.-sub.; Tome cinquième, sub.--tes.; Tome seizième, tie.--wis.. Quatrième édition, revue, corrigée et considérablement augmentée

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Antoine Christophe Merlin


text:
User talk:Paul Vogel/216.99.245.170

Cosmotheism is a form of classical pantheism that identifies God with the cosmos, that is, with the universe as a unified whole.

Overview
Cosmotheism asserts that "all is within God and God is within all". It considers the nature of reality and of existence to be mutable and destined to co-evolve towards a complete universal consciousness, or godhood.

Etymologically, cosmotheism differs from 'pan-theism' in that "pan" is Classical Greek for all, while the Greek word cosmos means an orderly and harmonious universe. Cosmotheists take this as meaning the divine is immanent to reality and consciousness, an inseparable part of an orderly, harmonious, and whole universal system.

In its broadest sense, the word cosmotheism may be considered simply as being synonymous with pantheism, although not all modern pantheists would accept Cosmotheism as a synonym for their own worldview due to the historical association of Cosmotheism with a political movement, white separatism, which some within the pantheist community may find objectionable.

According to a Cosmotheist Web site dedicated to the late Dr.William L. Pierce:

 * "Cosmotheism is a religion which positively asserts that there is an internal purpose in life and in cosmos, and there is an essential unity, or consciousness that binds all living beings and all of the inorganic cosmos, as one."

 * "What is our true human identity is we are the cosmos made self-aware and self-conscious by evolution. "

 * "Our true human purpose is to know and to complete ourselves as conscious individuals and also as a self-aware species and thereby to co-evolve with the cosmos towards total and universal awareness, and towards the ever higher perfection of consciousness and being."

Some claim Albert Einstein was a Cosmotheist,, along with Carl Sagan, Benedict Spinoza and other historical figures—although there is no quoted evidence of any of these three claiming to be "cosmotheist" as such, and all could also be said to be Pantheist.

Mordekhay Nesiyahu's cosmotheism
In Israel, Cosmotheism was also described by Mordekhay Nesiyahu, one of the foremost ideologists of the Israeli Labor Movement and a lecturer in its college Beit Berl in Israel.

In Cosmotheism — Israel, Zionism, Judaism and Humanity towards the 21st Century, Nesiyahu proposed not to just assume the existence of God, being "prior to all that was created," but to consider God as only being a result of the development of the universe and the consciousness of all of humankind.

Divinity in this particular view is inherently a human invention.

The development of the divine (or what the believer would qualify as being "the revelation of the Divine") was, in Nesiyahu's opinion, both the condition for a more exalted human functioning and all that bears the fruit that comes out of it.

In Nesiyahu's universalist re-imagining of a secular divinity, the universal celebration of Cosmotheism is the basis for rebuilding the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and is also a secular ethnically Jewish and a Zionist contribution to all of humankind.

Origins
In the United States, cosmotheism sometimes refers to a religion adopted in 1978 by National Alliance founder and white separatist the late Dr. William L. Pierce. Pierce affirmed his cosmotheist belief in a speech that he once gave entitled "Our Cause":

 * "All we require is that you share with us a commitment to the simple, but great, truth which I have explained to you here, that you understand that you are a part of the whole, which is the creator, that you understand that your purpose, the purpose of mankind and the purpose of every other part of creation, is the creator's purpose, that this purpose is the never-ending ascent of the path of creation, the path of life symbolized by our life rune, that you understand that this path leads ever upward toward the creator's self-realization, and that the destiny of those who follow this path is godhood."

Pierce's interpretation of cosmotheism  was greatly influenced by several disparate factors: interpretations of George Bernard Shaw's play Man and Superman; strains of German Romanticism; Darwinian concepts of natural selection and of survival of the fittest, mixed with the related early 20th century eugenic ideals; and Ernst Haeckel's version of monism.

Religion, society, and race
The foundation of Pierce's Cosmotheism was essentially similar to classical monistic pantheism — he recognized no physical difference or separation between human and divine, between creator and created — but with a few differences.

Pierce described his form of Cosmotheism as being based on "[t]he idea of an evolutionary universe ... with an evolution toward ever higher and higher states of self-consciousness," and his political ideas were centered on racial purity and eugenics as the means of advancing the white race first towards a superhuman state, and then towards godhood. In his view, the white race represented the pinnacle of human evolution thus far and therefore should be kept genetically separate from all other races in order to achieve its destined perfection in Godhood.

Dr. Pierce believed in a hierarchical society governed by what he saw as the essential principles of nature, including the survival of the fittest. In his social schema, the best-adapted genetic stock, which he believed to be the white race, should remain separated from other races; and within an all-white society, the most fit individuals should lead the rest. He thought that extensive programs of "racial cleansing" and of eugenics, both in Europe and in the U.S., would be necessary to achieve this socio-political program.

His National Alliance was to be the political vanguard and the spiritual priesthood of this program, which was designed ultimately to bring about a "White racial redemption". His Cosmotheist Community Church, which was to be the next step of this plan, was set up in the mid-1970s, alongside Pierce's other political projects — the National Alliance, National Vanguard Books, and the weekly broadcast American Dissident Voices — all from his mountain retreat headquarters in West Virginia.

Critical assessments
Pierce's views have been characterized as a version of early twentieth century racial anthropology, but driven by spiritual, as well as scientific, beliefs. This area of his belief was likely influenced by his early association with George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party. Others have noted the German Romantic roots that Pierce's ideas shared with Nazism and have observed similarities between the two ideologies: Pierce's plan for white divinity was similar to Adolf Hitler's vision for the Herrenvolk; also, his attacks against Jews as "parasites" on white society, who would prevent the white race from reaching its destined godhood by replacing the white elite with their own kind, echoed previous Nazi descriptions of Jewish traits and character.

Other criticisms have been harsher if not as factually-accurate; for example, the Southern Poverty Law Center has characterized Pierce's Cosmotheism as "an unsuccessful tax dodge". Followers of Pierce's cosmotheism do call many of these characterizations erroneous, as can be seen from this part of the Dr. Griffin interview with Dr. Pierce below from "The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds":

Dr Pierce-"And then there was a big fight with the IRS which I lost. They said that we weren't a church. They were obviously under pressure to take away the tax exemption we had. The IRS sent some agents out here to check us out. I still have the report they wrote. It had things like the road out here was very rough and not conducive to people getting to the services, and that we didn't have enough chairs and where were people going to sit, and there was no central heating system and so there couldn't be services in the winter— a bunch of baloney."

Dr. Griffin-(The IRS revoked Pierce's church status and the revocation was upheld in court. Pierce thinks the IRS was responding to pressure applied on it by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. While the vast majority of people view the ADL in a positive light, as an opponent of bigotry and intolerance, Pierce sees it as a Jewish instrument of thought control and the abridgment of freedoms. He contends that the ADL seeks to harm or even destroy anyone or anything that gets in the way of the Jewish agenda for this country, which includes him and his organization.)

Dr. Griffin-"You think your racial views were the real reason the IRS got on your case?"

Dr. Pierce-"If I had been preaching a doctrine that didn't irritate the Jews they would have left us alone. There are all kinds of snake-handling cults and everything else up here in these hills, and the IRS lets them call themselves a church and doesn't bother them. It is no big drain on the federal budget, and the IRS stays in good graces generally by not bothering people more than it has to. But in our case they were determined to get us, and it was strictly because of what I was teaching on racial and Jewish matters."

---

Related articles

 * Classical pantheism
 * Creativity Movement
 * Eugenics
 * List of Pantheists
 * Pan-atheism
 * Panentheism
 * Pantheism

Uncritical Reference for Nesinyahu's Cosmotheism

 * Cosmotheism, Israel, Zionism, Judaism and Humanity - towards the 21st Century by Mordecai Nesinyahu (Poetica - Tuvi Sopher Publishing, Tel Aviv.)

Jewish or Marxist Critical References for Dr. Pierce's Cosmotheism

 * Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism, by Mattias Gardell (ISBN 0822330717)
 * The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce's Theology of Revolution, by Brad Whitsel; published in Nova Religio Vol.1, No.2, April 1998.

Mordekhay Nesiyahu's cosmotheism

 * Nesiyahu's interpretation of Cosmotheism

Jewish, Marxist, Pan-atheist, and Fundamentalist Christianity Criticisms

 * The Turner Diaries and Cosmotheism: William Pierce's Theology of Revolution by Brad Whitsel (Nova Religio)
 * Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism, by Mattias Gardell (ISBN 0822330717)
 * A Blemish on the Blossom: Pantheism and White-Supremacist Hate Groups by Esther Hugenholtz (Pantheist Index)
 * Pseudo-Pantheism (Encyclopedia4U)
 * The Devil and its False Faces

Cosmotheist Advocacy

 * Cosmotheism site
 * A Tribute to the late Dr. William L. Pierce
 * The Path, by Dr. William L. Pierce
 * On Living Things, by Dr. William L. Pierce
 * On Society by Dr. William L. Pierce
 * An example of a Cosmotheist affirmation of belief
 * Interview with Dr. William L. Pierce on Cosmotheism (from The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds by Dr. Robert Griffin)

Just switching IPs is not going to work. You will be blocked again if you don't stop reverting articles. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:47, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, we can do this all day if you'd like? Either you DISCUSS your REASONING behind falsely calling this VANDALISM or the reverting will NOT STOP.

Thanks! :D

Is this vandalism? It seems to be political. People are reverting this IP edits without thinking. Secretlondon 13:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * There's quite a history with this user. See Conflicts between users/Paul Vogel. Thanks -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:58, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, and like David Gerard, below, BCorr is another "lying hypocrite" and pc-censor!:

We all know, David, by your own "actions" and "censorship" and "biased bannings" and "lying hypocrisy" that you are indeed posting with such a POV verses a Wiki NPOV in mind during your posts and editing!! What else isn't new?

 * Paul, if your edits are consistently reverted by many others, two possible explanations spring to mind:
 * There is a conspiracy against you to suppress the truth; or
 * You are failing to write stuff in the articles that someone disagreeing with you couldn't fairly dispute.

Or, #3, all of the above, as there has not been any "fair" disagreements about what I have written, as what I had written was only based upon the actual NPOV facts!

 * The NPOV article talks at length about this second one, as does NPOV tutorial.

I AM well aware of what NPOV SAYS and MEANS, and that is WHY I am so DISGUSTED with some of the biased POV EDITORS here, that do SAY one thing BUT only DO quite ANOTHER! Their ACTIONS DO SPEAK much LOUDER than their WORDS!

 * Please do consider that you might actually get more of your points across if you played better with others and didn't act in a manner closely resembling a crank - spamming a couple of paragraphs across multiple articles and talk pages, spamming copies of an entire article to its talk page, changing quotes, etc - David Gerard 16:07, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Do consider that not being such a "lying hypocrite" would actually give you some "personal integrity", and that would likely create the desire in people with actual personal integrity to "play better" with you, David Gerard. :D

title: User talk:Paul Vogel/216.99.245.170


text:
Talk:Charles Edward Jones

Notability
''This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in March and again in June 2004. Consensus both times was to keep; view discussion for March below and for June at Votes for deletion/more_911_victims_2.'' Also was subject to a  Votes for Deletion  in June 2005, which can be found at Votes for deletion/Charles Edward Jones

 * Another September 11 death. Adam Bishop 06:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Retired colonel. Keep. Anthony DiPierro 13:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Did he do anything of note before he retired, or is he only fucking noteworthy because of 9/11? If the latter is the case then delete. theresa knott 14:07, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) (unclear vote, conditional and before the astronaut detail was revealed - not a vote unless "keep" or "delete")
 * He was a colonel. That's fucking noteworthy. Anthony DiPierro 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * As a veteran, I appreciate your patriotism, but I disagree. Being a colonel alone is not noteworthy. Rossami 15:55, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC) ( count as delete?  - not a vote unless "keep" or "delete")
 * Keep, after adding detail. I don't think being a fucking Colonel is fucking noteworthy enough. But fucking being an fucking astronaut, albeit one who didn't get into space (his shuttle mission was cancelled after the Challenger disaster) is noteworthy.Average Earthman 19:35, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, just to clarify, it has nothing to do with patriotism. I'd say the same thing if he were an Iraqi colonel. Anthony DiPierro 18:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * "He was scheduled to be a crew member of a Space Shuttle dickhead flight in 1986." Anthony DiPierro 21:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. --Wik 13:29, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - move to sep11 if not already there - Texture 14:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everyking 17:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to sept 11th wiki and delete. Secretlondon 20:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to 9/11 wiki & delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:08, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Move and delete. -- Dissident 23:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This deletionism is really becoming ludicrous. All these calls for deletion, and not one reason for deletion has even been hinted at, let alone stated. -- Oliver P. 03:40, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC) (should be counted as keep - not a vote unless "keep" or "delete")

Vote bolding added by Anthony DiPierro

(Non-vote bolding added - Texture 17:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC) - in case there are any questions see: Deletion_policy)
 * which says: Here are some suggested wordings Anthony DiPierro 18:04, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that the vote by Oliver P. is a vote to keep. Anthony DiPierro 18:02, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete 'Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_Web_hosting_service.2C_social_networking_service.2C_or_memorial_site This man had neither prominence in the Manned Spaceflight Engineer Program, nor (according to this articcle) any significant claim to notability. Where are the citations to the contrary? Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

 * Keep. Another reason to keep besides being a 9/11 victim who was both colonel and astronaut is for who he is/was NOT, Charlie "Tremendous" Jones, as I came here looking for him here from the disambiguation page.  Astronauts are a big huge deal, and I think it's silly to even consider deleting this page.  In fact, there ought to be a wikipedia policy that explicitly states that astronauts should all be considered noteworthy just for being astronauts.  Additionally, given the degree to which the United States has become contorted as a result of 9/11, the very least that can be done is have brief articles on the people all of these contortions and erosions of fundamental rights have been done in the name of.  Otherwise we are all under constant surveillance as a result of the attacks upon and murders of people that wikipedia doesn't even consider important enough to have articles on.  Wikipedia should also have a standalone wikipedia policy stating that 9/11 victims are intrinsically noteworthy. Jonny Quick (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Delete Being a colonel does not automatically make one notable, nor does being a 9/11 victim or an astronaut. There are thousands of colonels, astronauts and 9/11 victims and they are not all noteworthy, nor should there be any "policy" that states otherwise. Notability requires some type of uniqueness that is described by the article and is supported by secondary sources cited in the article. The article lacks this. Jonny Quick's incoherently-written argument above that 9/11 victims are notable because of the post-9/11 infringement upon civil liberties is a non sequitur. Nightscream (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Votes made after article extended around 7pm 4th March
Keep: Average Earthman, Oliver Pereria, Anthony DiPierro Delete: Secretlondon, Wile E. Heresiarch, Dissident

 * This would normally be sufficient to keep the article and remove from vfd, but I thought it would be fair to let it a run a day or two more to see if those that originally voted delete have an opinion now. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:47, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The fact that no reason for deletion was provided is sufficient to keep the article and remove from Vfd. Wikipedia articles are not contestants in a Big Brother-style popularity contest. -- Oliver P. 23:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PD Photograph?
This, despite the watermark, appears to be an official USAF Photo of Col. Jones, and thus should be public domain, I'd think? - The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Edward Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/ to http://names.911memorial.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Edward Jones


text:
Ding Darling

Jay Norwood Darling (October 21, 1876 – February 12, 1962), better known as Ding Darling, was an American cartoonist who won two Pulitzer Prizes. He was an important figure in the 20th century conservation movement and founded the National Wildlife Federation. In addition, he was known to be close friends with Walt Disney.

Early life
Darling was born in Norwood, Michigan, where his parents, Clara R. (Woolson) and Marcellus Warner Darling, had recently moved so that Marcellus could begin work as a minister. In 1886, the family moved to Sioux City, Iowa, where Darling developed an early appreciation for nature and wildlife during days spent wandering the prairie. He began to learn the importance of conservation as a youth after an uncle admonished him for shooting a wood duck during nesting season.

Darling began college in 1894 at Yankton College in South Dakota and moved to Beloit College in Wisconsin the following year, where he began his studies in pre-medicine and became a member of Beta Theta Pi. While at Beloit he became art editor of the yearbook and began signing his work with a contraction of his last name, D'ing, a nickname that stuck.

Editorial cartoons
In 1900, Ding became a reporter for the Sioux City Journal. Following his marriage to Genevieve Pendleton in 1906, he began work with the Des Moines Register and Leader. In 1911, he moved to New York and worked with the New York Globe but went back to Des Moines in 1913. Three years later, in 1916, he returned to New York and accepted a position with the New York Herald Tribune. By 1919, Darling returned a final time to Des Moines where he continued his career as a cartoonist, winning the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning in 1924 and again in 1943. His cartoons were published from 1917 to 1949 in the New York Herald Tribune.

Wildlife conservation
Darling penned some conservation cartoons, and he was an important figure in the conservation movement. President Franklin Roosevelt appointed him to a blue-ribbon Committee on Wildlife Restoration in 1934. FDR sought political balance by putting the Hoover Republican on the committee, knowing he was an articulate advocate for wildlife management.

Following the passage of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act in 1934, which required waterfowl hunters to purchase a Federal Duck Stamp before hunting. Darling designed the first Federal Duck Stamp that year and was appointed Director of the Bureau of Biological Survey, a forerunner of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

The J. N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge on Sanibel Island in southwest Florida is named after him, as is the Lake Darling State Park in Iowa that was dedicated on September 17, 1950. Lake Darling, a 9,600-acre lake at the Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge is also named in his honor. More recently a lodge at the National Conservation Training Center near Shepherdstown, West Virginia was named in his honor.

Darling was elected as a member of the Boone and Crockett Club, a wildlife conservation organization, on December 13, 1934.

He was instrumental in founding the National Wildlife Federation in 1936, when President Franklin Roosevelt convened the first North American Wildlife Conference (now the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference), administered by the American Wildlife Institute (now Wildlife Management Institute).

Awards
Darling twice received the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning for his work with the Register & Tribune. Darling was first awarded the prize in 1924 for his work "In the Good Old USA" and again in 1943 for "What a Place For a Waste Paper Salvage Campaign".

He was awarded the Audubon Medal in 1960 by National Audubon Society for "outstanding achievement in the field of conservation and environmental protection".

title: Ding Darling


text:
Talk:List of Space Shuttle missions

STS-133 and STS-134
It would appear that STS-133 and STS-134 have been switched in the order that they go (the orbiter that performs each one has also been switched so that each orbiter remains in its original time slot). see http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html

 * Done! I corrected the list to reflect the recent changes made.--Navy blue84 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete list
I am new to editing Wikipedia, so forgive me if I'm going about this wrong, but if Enterprise is included in the list, Pathfinder should also most definitely be included. It, too, has never flown (never meant to), but it is a full Space Shuttle. I leave this editing to those who know what they're doing. ;)
 * It's only a simulator, isn't it? Enterprise is at least a functional shuttle, no? — Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because this is a list of space shuttle missions, pathfinder can't be included because it never did anything but logistic ground tests. The inclusion of Enterprise looks to be only the free flight tests.  These are clearly differentiated from the actual shuttle missions.  So, the unstated rule is that a shuttle had to have free flight.  It could be argued, though, that ALL the approach and landing tests should count, even if it Enterprise was mated to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.  Note that I DO NOT agree with this idea, but since we don't have a stated inclusion criteria, the argument could be made. Cjosefy 15:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Content-free Space Shuttle pages

 * All pages like STS-61-B, STS-61-C, STS-55, STS-56 etc which incorporate the Space Shuttle mission template but have no actual content whatsoever. Evercat 14:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: It helps people add content, but it is misleading because those with no information appear as blue links and not red. But, in fact, if the template was not ready, I would never add the crew list for STS-55, as I did just now. Optim 14:32, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the exact equivalent of species articles consisting solely of an empty taxobox, which I trust would never be allowed. Evercat 14:36, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Im responsible for putting these templates up, and the idea is to help people like Optim out. I believe they add value because the provide a starting poiint for people and they will standardize the look of Space shuttle missions, which helps overall comprehension as well as improving look and feel. I do not believe that they detract from the ability to add information to the Wiki any more than stub pages do.  The template provides a link to summaries of space shuttle missions that are in the public domain, so that content can be easily and quickly added, or if somone is just searching for information they can find it Theon 14:37, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there only was an ever so short stub text in addition to the blank template, it would be ok, and I recommend all who wish to ease the adding of additional content to put in atleast two sentences as a starter. — Sverdrup (talk) 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep, as I it trust all of them will fill up at least to stubs now. I don't like vfd being a place to bring sub-stubs into attention to be fixed though. — Sverdrup (talk) 20:31, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless filled with contents soon - just filling the table and list the crew would be enough to keep them. andy
 * I agree that even minimal content would probably be enough. Evercat 14:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I can agree with the minimal content decision, but how much is enough? would just a list of crew be enough?Theon 14:56, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I am adding crew lists. I hope it's enough to make people understand why we need the templates. If there was no template, I would never make those contributions. Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)~
 * Keep as stub or merge and redirect. Anthony DiPierro 14:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Absolutely do not merge. The current situation is better than a merge. Evercat 14:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed w/ Evercat Theon 14:57, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * No! do not merge! Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just a matter of adding basic content (crew etc) - basically copy & paste from NASA's pages - to make stubs of them. Fredrik 15:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. They are useful. However, somebody should go to List of space shuttle missions and mark the pages with no content with a star (*). Optim 15:06, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Creating a useful framework for information is just as valuable, and the results worth keeping, as information itself.  In any event, there is implied information (ie. "STS-61-C" was a Space Shuttle Mission") that is equivalent to a stub.  I suppose Theon could add this sentence or something similar if it makes deletionists happy, but I don't really see what it adds.  Jgm 15:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Alright. I myself will try to add some details to most some of these pages, either today or tomorrow. Evercat 16:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - will try to complete all the mission patches - Texture 17:30, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Decumanus 20:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Rlandmann 23:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep; they're being added to. Give Theon a little time and maybe lend a hand... - Seth Ilys 23:01, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ordering
It would be nice to be able to find somewhere an explanation of why missions are not in numerical order. For example, STS-107 (Columbia accident) was preceded by STS-113 and will be succeeded by STS-114. Jdavidb 19:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * When a Space Shuttle mission is first planned, it is assigned an STS number (example STS-113). During planning and training for that mission, it may fall behind. Another mission may prove to be more critical and may get moved up in the launch order. The missions keep their original STS numbers, but may end up being launched out of sequence. Error 404 17:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Added a number for the order of American shuttle flights, even though it is a simple numerical count (except for Buran) because this assists the reader in finding his or her way around the table; and because it is a pain to try to stare at the table and count to find out which was the 108th shuttle flight (or whatever). It also helps show the contrast between actual order and planning order. -- RandomCritic.

 * Good work. it looks good. Mlm42 03:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Reusable spacecraft
Should this article really be 'List of reusable spacecraft missions' and include SpaceShipOne, et. al.? Also, the only thing left to be done for this list (IMHO) is to complete the Notes field on the remainder of the entries. -Joseph (Talk) 19:32, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
 * Prospective entries:

-Joseph (Talk) 19:52, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

 * I'd say no to including SpaceShipOne cause it is a "space plane" not a "space shuttle", otherwise you'd have to include other ones like the X-planes or even some of the high flying SR-71s. MBisanz

Landing sites
Are the landing site listings all correct? Weren't at least one or two missions diverted to White Sands? --Matt McIrvin 21:39, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Possibly. There is certainly cleanup work to do. However, this is data that wasn't there before, at all. -Joseph (Talk) 21:47, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Somebody fixed STS-3... I went through looking for later missions that landed at Edwards. Think I got them all, but I could have missed one or two. --Matt McIrvin 22:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Country flags
I don't see much of a point in including these flags.. especially since they're all american except one.. sure maybe some day one would hope to have more countries (but also it seems efforts are becoming more and more international); so i'm considering removing the entire Agency column. Mlm42 23:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Also the Launch site column is pretty pointless.. How about something like Landing Date, or Duration? I changed the format of the table slightly to make it fit on my screen better, too. Mlm42 23:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You might make an argument against the Agency column, but I think the launch site part can be useful. There is definitely variance there. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:22:18, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

 * yes but just because there's variance doesn't mean we should make it seem so important that it gets it's own column.. it's my understanding that the two main launch sites are basically right next to each other anyway.. i don't know much about space shuttles, but it seems to me that that column, and the agency column could be replaced with something much most interesting and important. Mlm42 19:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

STS-300
i noticed the STS-300 article, shouldn't that be included on the list, or only when it is actually called upon? Boneyard 12:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it's mentioned in the first section of the article.. whether or not it should actually be on the list may be up for debate, since we're including future missions anyway.. it is kind of a special case, though. Mlm42 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

So.... then... where is the list of shuttle missions?

Future Missions
on http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com there is a mission manifest thats new. If anyone can verify it as being true, i'll update this page to show it. Tom walker 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Dates of future missions
Isn't it bad to show dates for future missions seeing asa how they NEVER launch on the dates planned! It is misleading, and we all know it. Maybe we should put future or planned or unsure in that date box instead to be less ambiguous. →   J @  red   talk  +  ubx   23:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I can't agree with you. I want to know the dates of the future shuttle missions. What's wrong with that? I think, it's interesting to see the scheduled launch dates. And if every future mission is so successful like STS-121, I see no problems for the further flights. -- STS-Chris 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Order number
I think the order number on the chart is not helpful. It is not strict and, as certain flights are moved up and done out-of-order from their original schedule it is confusing. We have gaps to attempt to track the STS numbers early in the list and later there is an offset. We should either be strict or not have it at all. -- 75.24.105.208 20:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

16 or 18
The list has 18 future missions while Mike Griffin has indicated many times, including after STS-121 flight, that there are only 16 missions left, 15 to assemble the ISS and 1 to the Hubble. It seems to me therefore that the list includes two non-existing missions. Which ones ? 193.56.37.1 14:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi! STS-131 and 133 are Contingency Logistic Flights. These missions will take place only if it is necessary. So the last scheduled missions are STS-130 and 132. -- STS-Chris 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled/not flown missions
It might be interesting to have a section on cancelled/not flown missions. I know there were a number of missions placed on the manifest and later cancelled (some even with patches already made, etc.). Also, this would take care of the STS-3xx missions that don't get flown. We shouldn't lose the fact that these missions were on the manifest and in the planning stages, but not needed. Cjosefy 13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cancelled Shuttle missions --GW_SimulationsUser Page 23:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Template:STS
I removed Template:STS from the bottom of this page. This page is already a list of all space shuttle missions, so I think there isn't much added by having what amounts to another list of the same missions placed at the bottom of the page. It's basically having the same information twice on the page, which is especially bad when that information involves 100+ missions. Cjosefy 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dates
Are the dates provided in UTC or local (Eastern). That makes a difference for STS-116 for instance. Hektor 09:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Should the title be List of space shuttle missions or List of Space Shuttle missions. Seeing as "Space Shuttle" is a name, I would suggest the latter. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ares
Why is there an Ares launch on the list. I know it is Shuttle-derived, but it is not a Shuttle itself. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 21:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is just true and since nobody seems to care about it being held in there, I now will kick it out. It simply isn't a space shuttle. It's as simple as that. There are no Saturn rocket starts listed either! Just the wrong place for an Ares launch to be listed, sorry. ColdCase 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

STS-133
I'm wondering... the page states that the STS-133 mission is only called STS-133 if the STS-131 and STS-132 are flown (I personally added that it would be called STS-131 if not, but it already read "STS-133 if CLFs are flown", so it would only be correct to assume that it's called STS-131 if they are not flown, if that is what this statement wanted to say). But to be honest, I think those mission numbers don't change! That is why there are sometimes high numbers early in the program and low numbers later... because they were planned in that order, but not flown in that order (or not flown at all). The last shuttle mission is already called mission STS-133 and I think it doesn't matter if the STS-131 and STS-132 (which would both be flown before STS-133) missions are flown, the STS-133 mission is STILL called STS-133 since all its planning took place under this name. So maybe we should just write down "133" and nothing about "if CLFs are flown" or so... in my opinion and understanding of NASA numbering, there is only one STS-131 mission, and it is not sure if it takes place. But there is for sure one STS-133 mission, and that is the last one and not one of the CLFs, it's the Endeavour mission on 9. July 2010, and it will be the last mission and flight of the space shuttle program. Anyone who knows more about that or agrees/disagrees?? ColdCase 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, please, forget it!! I messed up the mission name and the number of the flight in correct order! Sorry about that... that's just my fault. There's no problem! It would be flight 133 if the CLFs are flown and it would be 131 if they are not flown, just from a numbering point of view. The name of the mission is correctly stated as "STS-133". Excuse my stupid me ;) Again: No Problem, no discussion necessary. Over and out ColdCase 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured list
Hi. For a featured list, this page doesn't seem to have many references. Please can someone add some before I feel a review of the list's featured status is required. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Under references there is a link to NASA's space shuttle mission archive, which has all the numbers that are used in at least the timeline list. We could make that an inline ref at the top of that list. I'm personally not gonna waste my time on referencing 122 missions to each and every separate entry of NASAs website though. The thing that worries me most is the "totals" table. It would be good if we could have a reference that uses the same numbers. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the totals table needs to be ripped out and started again, with distances to a set number of significant figures. Most of the distances for current flights are rounded, which is why so much information is missing. from the table. As for references, I think inline citations are prefered in FAs. I'll see if I can do some of it at some point soon. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Flight Statistics
You can find an Up-To-Date Statistic @ Space Shuttle (might change within the next fiew days). It includes all flights untis STS-123 and will be updated every mission from now on. We also added the number of reserch Satelite wich were deployed and later recatched during the same mission (it#s the number in brackets). I highly recommend to write durations out instead writing them with a decimalpoint (e.g.: 300d 16h 47m 1s instead of 300.74d) and also keep the Distance short (e.g.: ca. 200 Mio. km instead of 201,497,772km) --Harry from germany18:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good way to format them. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I updeated the shuttle stats template, but they haven't gotten on to this article page yet. Maybe someone else can figure out why.--Navy blue84 (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Standardization in the use of italics
There should be standards defined in the use of italics. For instance, for the MPLMs, sometimes the names are italicized, and sometimes not. What is the rule ? Hektor (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should be italicized. We don't use italic's for the shuttle names, or for the moduel names like Harmony or Kibo. If we use italic's for the MPLM's then we need to use italic's for all names in the space articles.--Navy blue84 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do use italics for shuttle names. Any time a shuttle is mentioned by name, it is italicized. The same goes with any of the ISS modules, they too are always italicized, and when MPLMs are mentioned by name, they should be italicized as well. Where they aren't, it is by someone unfamiliar with the Manual of Style for the space/mission pages, and should be corrected. Ariel ♥ Gold 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify this a bit: The word "shuttle" is a noun. But when talking about a specific orbiter, such as Space Shuttle Discovery, it is a proper noun, should be capitalized, and the name italicized. If just talking about a generic shuttle activity, like "the shuttle landed without incident", shuttle isn't capitalized, or italicized. But when we talk about them as a proper noun, such as "Space Shuttle Endeavour successfully launched today", we do. The same goes for the MPLM, while it is nearly always linked and fully spelled out on the first mention, when including the name, such as "Leonardo", the name is italicized, but but not the "MPLM" part. Similarly, if one is just referring to any MPLM, then it would not be italicized. This is how it has been done for years, according to the Space MOS, the Maritime MOS, etc. (Ship names are also italicized - see Discovery, Adventure, Dolphin, etc., etc.) Ariel ♥ Gold 05:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

STS-119 "Never flew"

 * I find it strange to have "Never flew" next to STS-119. Furthermore, if it had been flown as a rescue mission, it would have been in 2009, not in 2008. Hektor (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a rescue mission for STS-126 have been STS-319, not STS-119, I am going to change it to STS-319 since it would have been an STS-3xx mission, so people are not confused.--Navy blue84 (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia bans original research, there is no source about STS-319 existing, you cannot call it this way. Hektor (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its actually not original research. I made the change based on the STS-3xx article and what has been discussed on the talk page there. It was stated rescue flights are labeled with the flight number(STS-319 for STS-119). So therefore it is not original research. Also I know the rules, I am not stupid or incompetent.--Navy blue84 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the preceding comment was deleted by . I have restored it as no justification for its removal was made. This action does not necessarily reflect on my opinion of the statement. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 00:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, in fact I disagreee with the whole list of not flown mission; the reason is that the list is not comprehensive, there are lots of missions which were not flown after Challenger for instance, they are not in the list either. Why put emphasis on the 3xx series ? Maybe we should have two articles, one with the flown missions, one with all the unflown missions. Hektor (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Back on topic, what's the deal with STS-119? It is listed as both flown and not flown. In addition, the link on the "never flew" mission directs to the flown mission's page.  Perhaps it should be included once in the regular list with a note specifying the nature of the postponement. --Anon

I'm not sure if it's totally useful to individually list all these missions. If we slightly improve the "contingency missions" section, it should be clear enough in my opinion. The primary reason they were included, was because they were talked about in press confs etc, but they are now mostly a part of history. But, reading about this suddenly made me remember that several other "unflown" but planned missions are missing in this list. These are some of the missions that were designated before challenger, and most of them were defense related launches (to be launched from SLC-6 Vandenberg) if I remember correctly. Several of the missions of '86 and later were simply re-designated, but I clearly remember reading that several were cancelled altogether. If someone has more info on them, that might be nice to add. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. this is really funny. I posted this several hours after I initially wrote it (got distracted and the tab got lost in all the other browsertabs). And I noticed the edit conflict, but only several hours later I see that Hektor said almost the exact same thing :D --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in doubt that the contingency missions should be listed in this page. They are no more than pre-planned rescue missions that would be flown should the need arise in the unlikely situation, therefore the presence of them in the list is only making the list even more confusing. Given that there is a STS-3xx page, maybe we should move the "special mission" part into that page? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Other Shuttles
Why is the Buran listed as "destroyed"? Wasn't it purchased by a museum in Germany? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdconod (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Braun was destroyed in an accident. It was being stored in a hanger at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, when the hanger collapsed, destroying the Braun space craft.--Navy blue84 (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Buran listed within the US Shuttle programs? It seems as if its similar appearance has led to it being lumped in with the US program, but the US and USSR weren't even getting along all that well at the time that Buran was an active program. Both its lone mission and the only flight-ready vehicle appear in the lists. I believe that Buran should be on a totally different page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.214.95 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. The article should be split into "US Space Shuttle Missions" and "USSR (?) Space Shuttle Missions."  Oh wait, there was only one...  Most of this material is about the US Program and the two vehicles have little other than the vehicles' outer appearance in common.  Will do so in a few days if no discussion. ThreeE (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree that Buran should be removed. I would oppose adding "US" to the title, as the US programme is the most common use of the term. If anything, "Space Shuttle" should be capitalised, as when referring to just the US programme it is a proper noun. --G W … 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree that Buran should be moved.--192.231.40.3 (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The Buran was a space shuttle, this list shows space shuttles and their missions; I don't understand the fuss; the Buran should stay. I'm more curious about the Boeing X-37 as flown by the U.S. Air Force in 2010. Is this not also a "space shuttle"? Shouldn't that mission, however vague, be added to the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.195.209 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Flawed stats
The total amount of flights is flawed 132, with only 126 missions listed, "someone" har added more flights on the active shuttles than they done. RGDS Alexmcfire

Future missions STS-131 and STS-132 assigned to the wrong shuttles
STS-131 is assigned to Discovery, STS-132 to Atlantis --Lenard Lindstrom (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Should the ALT tests be removed from the list?
I think that the 5 ALT tests flown by Enterprise should be removed from the list. These are definitely not "space shuttle missions" as defined in any sense: well it might have flown in the air, but certainly not into space. I have a feeling that including these gliding tests will only confuse the readers even deeper. Given that there is an even more comprehensive list in the Approach and Landing Tests, I think that the five "missions" should be removed from the list. Any comments? Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think they should be removed. Maybe adding sub-orbital test flight to the notes for each one, but removing them would be a little much. They are important events in the space shuttle programs history. I say keep them.--Navy Blue84 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Could add STS-135 to the planned missions
since STS-135 is approved by NASA and seems likely to get political/funding approval ? Rod57 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Made a start. Rod57 (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Launcher configurations for each STS mission
Should we mention in the table what STS-xxx mission used what SRB-xx/ET-xx combination - it currently mentions the orbier-names. The three major components of the launch system are those (Orbiter, ET, SRBs). See also here. Alinor (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Future of this article
As the NASA Space Shuttle program winds down -- with the certainty that, whatever the future of NASA's manned spaceflight mission is, it is not going to be in shuttles -- I'd like to open discussion on the final form of this article. Obviously, it isn't going to have a 'planned missions' section any more, but what else can be done to make this article better laid out, more comprehensive, and more informative? I suspect that statistics need review, at the very least.RandomCritic (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibilities for more information would be to add a "Payload" column, which lists the primary payload, possibly with masses included (at the moment this info is in the "Notes" column). Also, although it may increase the size of the table, information that seems to be "missing" from the table is the names of the crew; but the table would probably expand in size a lot and end up looking much like List of human spaceflights to the ISS.. unless there's a way to add a "show crew" feature to each line of the table, which is hidden by default? Mlm42 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the "Day" and "Year" columns could be combined into a "Launch date" column. And maybe a "Docking" column would be useful, which would contain either nothing, "Mir", "HST", or "ISS" (or others I'm forgetting..). Mlm42 (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've combined the Day and Year columns, and added a "Docked with" column. Maybe a natural way to split of the table would be to split it into "Post-Challenger disaster" and "Post-Columbia disaster" sections, since these were both followed by long stretched of no Shuttle flights. Mlm42 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Extra Dash in Mission Titles?
Is there a reason all the Space Shuttle missions between STS-41B and STS-61D are denoted on this page (and almost every other shuttle- or astronaut-oriented site that I've browsed through) are shown as "STS-41-B" with the extra dash prior to the alpha character? Kind of a minor deal, but the official NASA records do not reflect this (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/list_main.html) so I'm kind of wondering why the past Wikipedia authors do. It would require a little bit of work to fix on all the pages, but nothing impossible. Am I missing something? Ckruschke (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

 * The dashes are noted in the mission history from KSC, which manages the missions (see here for example). The NASA HQ website has been long overdue for a major overhaul; a lot of the information is outdated or sparse in details and finding the proper locations to get more details from the main page, can be difficult.  They are actually in the process of doing a major overhaul, bringing a lot of the satellite sites under one umbrella (for better or worse for the time being), it will be a long time before it is finished. --Xession (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Cool - thanks for the info!  Ckruschke (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Statistics table doesn't add up
The number of flights column actually totals 133, but the total reads 132. The number of orbits column totals 20,508, but the total reads 20,022. If there is a reason for the discrepancy it should be explained in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaxson (talk • contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Split
I am opposed to the proposed split. Instead, lets just delete spacecraft from this article which are not Space Shuttles (i.e. Buran). --G W … 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm opposed to the split to but the space shuttle title is not exclusive to the Space Shuttle Orbiter. See here. --Xession

 * You may not be aware of this but "Space Shuttle" capitalized specifically means the U.S. Space Shuttle program, your link talks about the "Buran space shuttle". In fact there's even a quote in there where the Molniya Company (created Buran) refers to the U.S. shuttle as the "Space-Shuttle".--Craigboy (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Sorry, what exactly is the proposal? The problem seems to be coming from the ambiguity of the term "Space Shuttle", and what this does or doesn't include. I think it's a good idea to have an article (this one) dedicated exclusively to NASA's Space Shuttles (including Enterprise). Including the Buran shuttle muddies the water, so I agree with GW that it should be removed. Mlm42 (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Would it be possible then to rename the article "List of Space Shuttle Orbiter missions" to reflect on it accurately? --Xession (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I think any normal use of the term Space Shuttle refers to the NASA Orbiters, so the extra word Orbiter seems unnecessary - and potentially confusing to some readers; but simply capitalizing "Space Shuttle" in the title might be a good move. Mlm42 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * But the correct name for the NASA space shuttle Orbiter is simply, "Orbiter". "Space Shuttle" in common, informal usage by NASA is used to refer to the Space Transportation System.  So either it should be "Space Transportation System missions" or "Space Shuttle Orbiter missions". Here is an article referring to the space shuttle without capitalization while this article discusses the "Orbiter".  Common usage shouldn't necessary outweigh accuracy in an encyclopedic setting. Any confusion by readers that don't know proper naming conventions for the system could easily be redirected. --Xession (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Space Shuttle is capitalised, that should be enough to differentiate. I think WP:COMMONNAME applies. In reality, there are no other "shuttles" anyway, just spaceplanes that have been mislabled be the mass media. --G W … 13:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "In reality, there are no other "shuttles" anyway, just spaceplanes that have been mislabled be the mass media" There are plenty of publications by NASA, which are certainly not to be considered mass media published material, that label the Buran a space shuttle. I've actually never seen the Buran orbiter labeled anything but a space shuttle.  Regardless, even if "Space Shuttle" is the most common name for the Space Transportation System, it doesn't negate the ambiguity of the existence of another vehicle also labeled a "space shuttle" and it seems very US-centric to neglect this. Nonetheless, I can see there is no interest in my position and will end further discussion on the matter. --Xession (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GW is right, we should really be following the WP:COMMONNAME policy for article titles, even though some might argue it's not technically correct. On the other hand, this policy doesn't apply to the actual content of the article, where it may be more appropriate to clarify the terms. Mlm42 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We just need an independent "U.S. Space Shuttle Missions" page, it used to exist but I believe someone changed the name and added Buran to the list.--Craigboy (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The amount of material related to Buran in this article is so small that there's no reason not to include it.  It hardly overbalances the article.  When over 95% of the article is about the NASA Shuttle program, and when there is already an article about Buran, calling it a "split" is disingenuous; what is actually being proposed, under another name, is deleting the material about Buran.  Now that we know what we're talking about, the question has to be asked: why?  What harm does including the Buran material do?  Isn't it beneficial for readers to be able to compare Buran and STS at a glance?
 * I agree that the differences between the systems are sufficient that they should be treated separately. But that can be easily done within the same article by putting the Buran material into its own section -- which I have just done. But why remove it?RandomCritic (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One reason for removing it, is because the term "space shuttle" isn't a precisely defined notion (for example, the Boeing X-37 is often called a "space shuttle".. should we be including that as well?). On the other hand, the term "Space Shuttle" (capitalizing) is a well defined notion - it refers to NASA's Space Shuttle Orbiter. Mlm42 (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it is important to include the Buran in an article like this, to allow to compare stats between US and Soviet Space shuttles and remind people that the US aren't the only ones in the game. I do think however that it is unhelpful that when one search wikipedia for 'Space Shuttle' they are immediately redirected to the STS Space Shuttle page, I think it would be better and cause less confusion of this sort if users when they searched for 'Space Shuttle' arrived at a 'Did you mean...' page offering links to both and STS and Buran Space Shuttle pages. I also think the title of this page could be better named to avoid much of the confusion being debated by your good selves above, I think in the title the term 'missions' should be removed and replaced with the term 'flights' as the Buran did not carry a crew so does that qualify it for the title of 'mission'? Hence in the public mind wikipedia users expect to find a page on STS space shuttle flights not Buran also. So in conclusion: I oppose split, I oppose remove Buran from this article and I propose renaming the article 'List of Space Shuttle Flights'. Thanks Markcoulter50 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support... well sort of. Ouch. The usage of the term "Space Shuttle/ space shuttle" is a real mess. While the most common usage links it with United States' STS, the mass media use this term for a variety of other space transportation systems, notably Buran-Energia and the X-37. Heck, this term does not refer to a winged spacecraft in the literial sense: I can say that the Soyuz spacecraft is a kind of space shuttle, because it shuttles crew between Earth and a space station! I'm afraid the usage of "space shuttle" is as notorious as "heavy launch vehicle" among spaceflight amateurs. My suggestion: drop all non-STS related missions; re-name the article "List of United States Space Transportation System missions"; write a new article that includes all missions of spacecrafts with wings (or capable of vertical-launch and horizontal landing) that has been flown into orbit (which includes Buran, X-37 etc.). Unfortunately, this begs the question of a clear criteria of inclusion of these spacecrafts (By L/D ratio? We then need a reference for the crteria outside then... urgh!). So... any comments for this?  Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we remove the Buran info and merge this page with the Space Shuttle program?--Craigboy (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. The scope of both articles is basically the same.. although the list would be a large party of Space Shuttle program, maybe it wouldn't be too large. Mlm42 (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point in doing a merge which would only be split again within weeks or months.RandomCritic (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree in principal that this article should be about the U.S. Space Shuttle. However, if it is split, would an article on all Braun missions last long on its own? Were there any ALT tests that can be included in that article? If we split the 2, I envision that someone will come along and either A) nominate an article about Buran missions for deletion, or B) suggest a merge of that article with the Buran spacecraft article, which would start another debate here about whether or not the U.S. Space Shuttle missions article should be merged with the orbiter article. If it is being split and both articles are going to be merged into the spacecraft articles, then I fully support that move. If they are split and left as a stand-alone article, then my only concern is that can an article on Braun missions stand on its own and be of a quality and length that the Wiki-Space project is capable of? I don't think it would be fair to split and have one article on U.S. Space Shuttle missions and not one on Buran missions. However if you were to include X-37B and others, and they were to be given equal weight then ok. However, there is not much out there on X-37B.--Navy Blue84 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with covering Buran's flight in the Buran article? --G W … 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. If that is what is agreed upon, I think that the flight stats from the U.S. space shuttle should be moved into the orbiter article, if the Buran flight stat(s) is moved to its article. However, I think with a little work and digging, we can have both as separate articles with out any merge into the specific spacecraft articles.--Navy Blue84 00:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious that we don't need a separate article to list the flights and statistics for Buran. Any such information should go in either Buran program and/or Buran (spacecraft) (if it isn't already there). Mlm42 (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Craigboy (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment A few months ago I visited this article as I was not sure which would be the last STS missions. I was surprised to see the section about the Buran but then was glad it was there as it gave the article a more inclusive feel. I then went and looked at the Buran articles. Had this been a "See Also" I likely would not have noticed. Thus, while I don't have strong feelings on if this should be a STS mission page I am leaning towards the current structure where it has a section for the Buran. However, if the article starts getting cluttered with unmanned "shuttles" such as the Boeing X-37B or suborbital "shuttles" such as the North American X-15 or SpaceShipOne then I'd want to split to have a page that lists the STS missions. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 * No decision appears to have been made on the 'proposal'. This is not surprising, as the exact nature of the proposed split has never been stated, i.e., what would be the two articles resulting and what material would go into which article? It's not at all clear just what modification of the article is being supported or opposed.  Until a coherent and feasible proposal for a split is made, I have removed the split tag as potentially misleading. RandomCritic (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Contingency missions
I'd like to remove the table listing contingency missions from the relevant sections, for the following reasons: first, it takes up space; second, exactly the same information can be found in the linked STS-3xx article; third, all of its information is counterfactual at this point, as none of the contingency flights ever launched. While it was worth keeping as long as there was a chance that there might, at some time, be a contingency flight that was actually a flown shuttle mission, right now it doesn't seem to be an essential part of an article whose main focus is those shuttle missions which actually flew. (We don't list flights that were proposed but cancelled, for instance.) Any objections? RandomCritic (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I object! I think that they should stay, and that all proposed but unflown missions should be added. Just because a mission didn't launch doesn't mean some credence shouldn't be given to it. The LON missions and those like STS-144 (Hubble retrieval mission) could be put in a section called something like "Unflown" or "Unlaunched" or "Proposed missions". Just the two cents of a nut!--Navy Blue84 18:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep them. The point of this article is to have a comprehensive list of missions.  Deleting the information because it can be found elsewhere is contrary to that purpose.  The fact that these missions did not launch does not change that they were planned for and designated.  They belong in the list. Keep. TJRC (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Support deletion. For a long time the first sentence of the lead has been "This is a list in table format of all missions flown by space shuttles launched between 1981 and 2011." Given the contingency and other proposed missions were never flown we should either update the lead to match the article content or delete the missions not flown from the list. It appears the "list of missions flown by space shuttles" wording has existed for over a year. With that in mind I'd support cleaning up the Contingency missions section to have minimal content similar to the Cancelled missions section. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Small request
Would it be possible to add a column to the mission list table to indicate which of the two shuttle launch pads each mission launched from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4420:5914:0:211:24FF:FEA1:BFCB (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IDEA: Links to Post Flight Presentation Videos
A column in the table for each mission's Post Flight Presentation video would be awesome. Any table-jockeys up for it? :) And if you haven't seen the vids, they are amazing.  What a great resource! STS Post Flight Presentation Videos are at:  http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL46C2B72FFEAEE72D Clintonefisher (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

feedback notes
Hi Matthew. Not bad! A few thoughts before it goes back to FLC:

 * Main table

 * Visual - the mission numbers could be centred (and bolded?) above or below the patch, which will look a little cleaner.
 * Use "sequence" or "order" rather than "No." for first column? "No." suggests a formal numbering system.
 * "first ESA Astronaut" should probably have a name!
 * "Germany funded"/"Japan funded" should be, eg, "German funded mission" or "Mission funded by Germany".
 * Link "abort to orbit"
 * Watch out for abbreviations: You mix "HST" and "Hubble Space Telescope", etc.
 * Mir is sometimes italicised, sometimes not
 * Contingency missions - did 320 support 120? It seems out of synch with the others.

And the big one - Buran seems strange here and feels very much an afterthought. I would strongly suggest creating a separate list of Buran flights and refocusing this one on the US program - probably retitling it Space Shuttle in the process. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for your feedback! ~ Matthewrbowker  Poke me  22:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

 * ✅ I have addressed all of the comments above, except for the last one. Splitting is possible, even if it's just a SIZESPLIT, however; I'm going to look more into it rather than just spitting right now.  I think it would be a very good idea though. ~  Matthewrbowker  Poke me  00:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I have split the articles, citing WP:SIZESPLIT. Please see List of Buran spaceplane missions for the second part of the article. ~  Matthewrbowker  Poke me  21:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Looks good :-). Let me know when you run it to FLC. The "cancelled" section could potentially be expanded a bit, but it's hard to do that without replicating the other article (and then we have the Buran problem again...) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you :) I will definitely let you know when I run it through FLC, I'm hoping to do that soon.

 * I agree, the "canceled" section needs some expansion. And some sources too... I will sit down and do that soon. Thank you much! ~  Matthewrbowker  Poke me  21:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I've added sources to the "canceled" section. Does that work? ~ Matthewrbowker  Poke me  17:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That Buran split was long overdue, so thanks for doing it. I've renamed the new page to drop the "spaceplane" since we don't usually use that level of precision in other similar titles. With regards the Shuttle article there are a couple of issues I noticed. I think it could use some clarification regarding launch dates - possibly adding times and specifying which timezone the dates are given in. For consistency (both between launches and with other articles), and in keeping with the preferred styles of WP:SPACEFLIGHT, I would suggest going with UTC first but also including the local EST/EDT times. I also feel that the summary section does not make it sufficiently clear to a casual reader that Enterprise never flew in space, and its flight times are for atmospheric missions only. Finally I would suggest doing away with the rendezvous column in the main table - in the early days of the programme such missions were rare so there are a lot of empty rows, and for missions where rendezvous did occur it is usually if not always mentioned prominently in the notes column. --W. D.  Graham  18:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words. You're probably right, the "spaceplane" part was a little specific.  I was attempting to avoid any controversy in that split/move (same with the creation of the redirect).  Thank you for fixing that.

 * Thank you for the feedback. I will address it here this evening, and will let you know when it's complete so you can review.  Thank you much! ~  Matthewrbowker  Poke me  21:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 * ✅ Sorry about the delay, UTC was kicking my butt.  I wound up writing a script to convert the times, and everything should be set now.  I also clarified the introduction, including information about Enterprise.  If you'd like, you are more than welcome to review my work and provide further comments.  Thanks much! ~  Matthewrbowker  Poke me  21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated the list for FLC. Thank you! ~ Matthewrbowker  Poke me  21:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

source problem
footnote NO. 14, Godwin, p. 32, what's this "Godwin" stand for?--Jarodalien (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * From the bibliography, "Goodwin, Robert (2001). Space Shuttle – STS Flights 1-5 – The NASA Mission Reports. Canada: Apogee Books. ISBN 1-896522-69-6." Appears to be a typo. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 23:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Space Shuttle missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091029004712/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-67.html to http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-67.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Space Shuttle missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20160314160635/http://insider.foxnews.com/2012/04/27/fast-facts-on-the-space-shuttle-enterprise/ to http://insider.foxnews.com/2012/04/27/fast-facts-on-the-space-shuttle-enterprise/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have checked this change ~ Matthewrbowker Say something ·  What I've done 21:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting information
In the Test flights section, of Enterprise states the date of image as "26 September 1977". However, the chart in that same section does not have any flights listed in the "Launch date" column for that date. Is the chart wrong or the date listed on the file image? Mitchumch (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are orbiters now?
Should the Lead and body of article include where the Enterprise and the surviving three orbiters are on display? The information can be copied from the articles about the individual vehicles. David notMD (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

‘Eliminating crew’
Don’t want to sacrifice accuracy and official language for the sake of sensitivity, but this does seem a very brutal and dehumanising way to describe what happened. Could we replace it with ‘leading to deaths of entire crew’ or similar? Harsimaja (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Colors in Launch Graphics
The sections "Launches" and "Timelines of missions" at the end of the article use two completely different color schemes for identifying the individual orbiters. The sections are adjacent to each other, so this difference is very noticeable. I propose we standardize these color palettes. I personally like the colors used in the Shuttle timeline template much better, and the Launches bar chart actually used that color scheme previously. However the colors were updated for color blind readability, so I could live with that. Either way, I think we need to update the colors used in the Launches section, or update the "Template:Shuttle timeline" colors. Comments? BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I support your idea. I don't care which colors are used, but color blind readability should be prioritized. Mitchumch (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 * I did some research to find a colorblind-friendly color palette that also looked good against a white background. Several good color palettes had at least one color that was too light to show up well against white. I ended up going with Paul Tol's "Bright" color scheme. Edited the Launches section on this page, as well as the template. I'm not sure it's perfect, but I think it's better than what we had before, since the two visualizations are now consistent. BuckeyeSmithie (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 * Looks fine to me. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Space Shuttle missions


text:
Wok racing

Wok racing is a sport developed by the German TV host and entertainer Stefan Raab in which modified woks are used to make timed runs down an Olympic bobsleigh track. There are competitions for one-person woksleds and four-person woksleds, the latter using four woks per sled.

History
Wok racing was inspired by a bet in the German TV show Wetten, dass..?. In November 2003, the First official Wok World Championship was broadcast from Winterberg. The immediate success led to the second world championship in Innsbruck on March 4, 2004. Participants are mostly b-list celebrities like musical artists, actors, and TV hosts, but there are also known athletes that have ongoing professional careers in winter sports, like three-time Olympic luge champion Georg Hackl and the Jamaican Bobsled Team. The third championship took place again in Winterberg on March 5, 2005. In contrast to the previous championships, there were two runs in which all contesters participated. The times of both runs were added. As a further innovation a qualifying round was created in which the participants had to jump from a trickski-jump with woks to determine the starting order. Further the sport event was professionalized.

Equipment
The typical racing woks are the ordinary round-bottomed Chinese pans, usually directly imported from China. The only modifications are that the bottom is reinforced with an epoxy filling and the edges of the wok are coated with polyurethane foam to avoid injuries. Four-person woksleds consist of two pairs of woks, each of them is held together by a rounded frame. The two pairs are connected by a coupling. Due to the rather risky nature of the sport the participants wear heavy protective gear, usually similar to ice hockey equipment. To further reduce friction and the risk of injuries, the athletes wear ladles under their feet.

To improve performance, the undersides of the woks are often heated with a blowlamp before the race.

Advertising controversy
Public wok racing is only practiced once a year at The "World Wok Racing Championships" (German: Wok-WM,, lit. Wok Worldcup) which is aired as special edition of Raab's show TV total on the German television channel ProSieben. The network used to declare these broadcasts as sporting events. Under German law that allowed the network to treat the massive corporate sponsorship of the event as incidental advertising which didn't count against Germany's strict rules regarding time limits for TV commercials. After a Berlin court ruling in 2009, however, the shows have to be labeled as an infomercial, since – unlike a regular sporting event – the races are explicitly staged for the TV broadcast, and there is strong evidence that the profits of the event sponsorship directly benefit the network.

Venues

 * 🇩🇪 November 6, 2003: Winterberg
 * 🇦🇹 March 4, 2004: Innsbruck
 * 🇩🇪 March 5, 2005: Winterberg
 * 🇦🇹 March 11, 2006: Innsbruck
 * 🇦🇹 March 9, 2007: Innsbruck
 * 🇩🇪 March 8, 2008: Altenberg
 * 🇩🇪 March 7, 2009: Winterberg
 * 🇩🇪 March 19, 2010: Oberhof
 * 🇦🇹 March 12, 2011: Innsbruck
 * 🇩🇪 March 10, 2012: Königssee
 * 🇩🇪 March 2, 2013: Oberhof
 * 🇩🇪 March 8, 2014: Königssee
 * 🇦🇹 March 14, 2015: Innsbruck
 * 🇩🇪 November 12, 2022: Winterberg
 * 🇩🇪 November 11, 2023: Winterberg

title: Wok racing


text:
Antoine-François-Claude Ferrand

Antoine François Claude, comte Ferrand (4 July 1751 – 17 January 1825), French statesman and political writer, was born in Paris, and became a member of the parlement of Paris at eighteen.

Life and career
Ferrand left France with the first party of emigrants, and attached himself to the Prince of Condé; late he was a member of the council of regency formed by the comte de Provence after the death of Louis XVI. He lived at Regensburg until 1801, when he returned to France, though he still sought to serve the royalist cause.

In 1814 Ferrand was made minister of state and postmaster-general. Ferrand countersigned the act of sequestration of Napoleon's property, and introduced a bill for the restoration of the property of the emigrants establishing a distinction, since become famous, between royalist of la ligne droite and those of la ligne courbe. At the second Bourbon restoration Ferrand was again for a short time postmaster general. He was also made a peer of France, member of the privy council, grand-officer and secretary of the orders of Saint Michel and the Saint Esprit, and in 1816 member of the Académie française. He continued his active support of ultra-royalist views until his death, which took place in Paris on 17 January 1825.

Besides a large number of political pamphlets, Ferrand was the author of:
 * Éloge funèbre de Mme Élisabeth, sœur de Louis XVI
 * L'Esprit de l'histoire, ou Lettres d'un père a son fils sur la manére d'étudier l'histoire (4 vols., 1802), which reached several editions, the last number in 1826 having prefixed to it a biographical sketch of the author by his nephew Héricart de Thury
 * Éloge historique de Madame Élisabeth de France (1814)
 * Œuvres dramatiques (1817)
 * Théorie des révolutions rapprochée des principaux événènements qui en ont été l'origine, le développement ou la suite (4 vols., 1817)
 * Histoire des trois démembrements de la Pologne, pour faire suite l'Histoire de l'anarchie de Pologne par Russie (3 vols., 1820).

title: Antoine-François-Claude Ferrand