Talk:Long March (rocket family): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:50, 22 September 2008

China Unassessed

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPSpace

It has been proposed that in order to clean up inconsistent disambiguation of rocket article titles, this article, Long March (rocket family), be moved to Long March (rocket). Please see this page for discussion.

Caption

the photo in the article goes without a description. can anybody add one to it? Roswell Crash Survivor 03:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)I'm so new to Wiki I couldn't even get a caption right.[reply]

Dates

I'm editing the Freja (satellite) article, and this article claims that it was launched on October 5. However it was lunched on October 6 UTC (see that article and references). I'm not sure what timezone the other dates are in this article. Should we change? Kricke 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the web in Chinese, some sources (11 results) claim it was October 5, while others (223 results) claim October 6. Yao Ziyuan 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More web searches reveal the launch time might be 14:20 Beijing time on October 6, I'm not sure if the time was Daylight saving, it could be 06:20 UTC (no daylight saving) or 05:20 UTC (daylight saving), can't be 07:20 as claimed by the article Freja (satellite). Yao Ziyuan 12:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a daylight saving time, the launch time was 06:20 UTC on October 6. Yao Ziyuan 12:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I got 07:20 UTC from the NSSDC Master Catlalog. Kricke 17:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mailed NSSDC, and they've corrected the problem. Yao Ziyuan 15:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God job! I found more errors in the MSSDC master catalog, but I never got a reply when I e-mailed them. See launch date for the Hubble Space Telescope and its launch vehicle STS 31. One would imagine they should have the same launch date? :) E-mail them if you want to, I won't do it again. If you do, you can confirm that they NSSDC are the maintainers of the International Designator Catalog and not COSPAR. Se discussion on Talk:International_Designator. Kricke 17:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications table

Good work adding the specs table showing details for for each version. It would be even better if it included columns like "Date of first launch", "Date of most recent launch", "Number of launches" and "Active/inactive".

Internal Links

The internal links in the table all just direct straight back to the main Long March page.

Is there any point in keeping them? Lethe naiad (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long March 5

I am concerned about the Long March 5 entry in the table of variants. Firstly, an anonymous user keeps changing it to "Long March 6", without providing any evidence. If anybody corrects his edit, then he changes it back and accuses them of vandalism. Secondly, some of the sources provided for this entry seem irrelevant, particularly this, which I cannot read, but it appears to be a book cover, and I find it unlikely that it could provide much information on the status of the programme. This source appears to contain some information on a Chinese programme, but it is unclear if it is CZ-5. The main text of that article contains little or no useful information. Finally, this source appears to be completely irrelevant. Please can we try to address these issues. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of those items have anything to do with LM-5 and the change to 6 confuses me. The second photo is of a small rocket, certainly not LM-5. The only thing I can think is that this individual is trying to imply that there is another rocket on the roster which has not been included in official chinese lists. Though I suppose there's a potential coverup issue or something of that order, this isn't an appropriate way of expressing that, especially since it isn't at all effective. Even if there was another rocket, it is unlikely China would simplye redesignate 5 as 6 and drop this one in the middle. My guess is the second link (Which doesn't have the Hanzi for 5 or 6 though with only rudimentary knowledge of Hanzi I don't know much else), is a picture of another one of the chinese rockets we are already aware of. The editor in question should be reported if he continues. aremisasling (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further looking there does appear to be a hanzi for LM-6 in the third source. It has the same initial characters as the writing in the article with the hanzi for 6 after it. (长征六) I can't verify that the article containing it says anything about Long March 5 being reclassified as Long March 6. I can say it seems rather unlikely that a reclassification would go unnoticed in the international space community. If it has, I'm sure there is an article out there somewhere. aremisasling (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:40, 22 September 2008 edit Aremisasling (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,224 edits m →Long March 5 ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:50, 22 September 2008 edit undo Aremisasling (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,224 edits →Long March 5 Next edit →
Line 45:		Line 45:

	:Yeah, none of those items have anything to do with LM-5 and the change to 6 confuses me. The second photo is of a small rocket, certainly not LM-5. The only thing I can think is that this individual is trying to imply that there is another rocket on the roster which has not been included in official chinese lists. Though I suppose there's a potential coverup issue or something of that order, this isn't an appropriate way of expressing that, especially since it isn't at all effective. Even if there was another rocket, it is unlikely China would simplye redesignate 5 as 6 and drop this one in the middle. My guess is the second link (Which doesn't have the Hanzi for 5 or 6 though with only rudimentary knowledge of Hanzi I don't know much else), is a picture of another one of the chinese rockets we are already aware of. The editor in question should be reported if he continues. [[User:Aremisasling\|aremisasling]] ([[User talk:Aremisasling\|talk]]) 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)		:Yeah, none of those items have anything to do with LM-5 and the change to 6 confuses me. The second photo is of a small rocket, certainly not LM-5. The only thing I can think is that this individual is trying to imply that there is another rocket on the roster which has not been included in official chinese lists. Though I suppose there's a potential coverup issue or something of that order, this isn't an appropriate way of expressing that, especially since it isn't at all effective. Even if there was another rocket, it is unlikely China would simplye redesignate 5 as 6 and drop this one in the middle. My guess is the second link (Which doesn't have the Hanzi for 5 or 6 though with only rudimentary knowledge of Hanzi I don't know much else), is a picture of another one of the chinese rockets we are already aware of. The editor in question should be reported if he continues. [[User:Aremisasling\|aremisasling]] ([[User talk:Aremisasling\|talk]]) 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

			:Upon further looking there does appear to be a hanzi for LM-6 in the third source. It has the same initial characters as the writing in the article with the hanzi for 6 after it. (长征六) I can't verify that the article containing it says anything about Long March 5 being reclassified as Long March 6. I can say it seems rather unlikely that a reclassification would go unnoticed in the international space community. If it has, I'm sure there is an article out there somewhere. [[User:Aremisasling\|aremisasling]] ([[User talk:Aremisasling\|talk]]) 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)