Talk:Timeline of the Mars Science Laboratory mission/Archive 1

Quality standards

Dear user Havebased123: Yes, the MSL & Curiosity rover will eventually require of a Timeline section or separate article. However, this (draft) page has several issues, starting with its scope and quality standard. There is no text to speak of, and certainly this draft is not dealing with the mission timeline. At the moment, it seems to be limited to a near random collection of images with random formats. I strongly suggest a review of Wikipedia:Timeline standards for improvement of this page.

See also

• Wikipedia:EasyTimeline
• Wikipedia:Timeline standards
• Wikipedia:Timeline syntax

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A timeline is beyond images

This timeline is currently limited to images, which is unnecessarily self-limiting in scope. I suggest the main editor(s) consider inclusion of key timeline mission factors (past and upcoming) that are not photographed, such as cruise course corrections, change of software after landing, and upcomming scientific developments. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear user Havebased123, lets try this again from a different angle. Instead of pasting a "daily" link Status of MSL Mission (in a very pretty format), how about actually typing here such status updates? Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs

Multiple editors have run Reflinks on the article. The balance of the refs will have to be done manually. User: Havebased123 has a template on his user talk page which can be copied to use as a reference to complete the balance of the bare URLs, unless another editor fixes it first. With the template present on the article page, the article page will appear on a list of articles needing to have bare URLs fixed, for bots and other editors to help complete. Removing the template will most likely result in the URLs being subjected to link rot quickly. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

August 14

I'm trying to stave off an edit war with someone who keeps including general mission goals under the August 14th heading. Anyone have any thoughts? Czolgolz (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The info in question is out of place, and is a description of the vehicle. Good luck dealing with user Havebased123. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please view that editor's talk page history. Communication doesn't happen at all. The IPs resolve to Poland. Do what you need to do, and I'll monitor the response for assistance, if required. Cheers. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 02:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Czolgolz (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you were right, they just blanked this discussion. Czolgolz (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had practice for the last week. This editor is on the 3rd revert for this information. The next instance will be taken to the 3RR noticeboard, as much as I loathe reporting editors there. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Now they have copied things verbatim from the NASA website. Czolgolz (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, follow the guidelines as you understand them. Make the corrections you feel appropriate (especially with regards to violating copyright rules by "cutting and pasting" entire sections of text from a source). There are enough editors who are willing to follow the guidelines, and understand that editors should avoid ownership WP:OWN of articles, that if you don't violate the 3RR rule, you will have support for your edits. You'll likely get nothing but static from the editor in question. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There were 3 separate entries on the software upgrade so I coalesced them. Any disagreement?

Also, I don't think it is acceptable to include "future plans" into random sol sections; I set them as invisible. Should we delete them? Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be deleted, unless they are specific, day by day timelines. Czolgolz (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my thought. I will delete them. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Full support from me. It was very disorienting reading the updates for individual days, and then "going back in time" to some generic half-filled out chart. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 23:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ChemCam first firing

i have here information over mars curiosity's first firing of the ChemCam instrument, however in trying to figure out the best way to display the information on the page. Would the information need to be displayed in this page or the mars curiosity rover main page? Rover's Laser Instrument Zaps First Martian RockChemCam laser sets its sights on first Martian target ChemCam laser sets its sights on first Martian target — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrpf22pr (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Although the mass media is having a field day, this event was just a target-shoot practice and instrument calibration on a non-interesting rock. Mission Control plans to zap "dozens" of interesting targets every day for a few years, so I strongly advocate to include only relevant events, as supposed as trivial daily entries or images. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Split article

This article needs to be structured in a better way.

I believe there is the need to create articles in the form

Timeline (main article with excerpts and links to sub articles)

|

|_Sub article: Pre launch

|_Sub article:Post launch and landing

|_Sub article:August to December 2012

|_Sub article:January to March 2013

|_Sub article: ...and so on

Thanks --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)