Template talk:In space

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Space (defunct) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Space, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.SpaceWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceTemplate:WikiProject SpaceSpace Spaceflight This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight

@Swpb: Hello! This is regarding the name change of this template. First of all, most of the articles in the navigation box do not even include the "in space" suffix, so the name doesn't fit. It also seems unprofessional and/or informal. Also, I've seen several navboxes like this one with names like what I've proposed: Template:United States topics, Template:Asia topics, Template:Africa topics, Template:Islam topics, to name a few. The "___ topics" format seems to be the norm for these navboxes. Please consider my proposal! —  Melofors  TC  03:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Informal, but not unprofessional. The "...in space" visible title communicates well, and no further descriptor actually needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox serves a different role than {{Spaceflight}} (which I think is the "Space topics" navbox you have in mind) – the idea here is to capture the space-related aspects of topics that are not specific to space. We have articles about hygiene generally, and then there's hygiene in space. There's tourism generally, and then there's tourism in space. The article titles may not be phrased "X in space", but they easily could be, and the phrase neatly illustrates what ties this particular group of articles together. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 14:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template could definitely have a clearer name. The current "...in space" heading can look like it's following on from the navbox directly above it, when stacked. Belbury (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was then clouds, etc. would be included. In Space starts after Earth's atmosphere is passed. And 'space exposure' is a link to the section listed just ahead of it and should be removed. And my mistake, I missed that the atmosphere entries were already on the template. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The boundary between the atmosphere and space is variously defined, and experts widely consider the outer layers of the atmosphere to be part of space. Two editors believe these entries belong, and your continued removal of them is edit warring. I have two degrees in aerospace engineering – you? —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 15:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be right on the atmosphere listings, but just barely for some. ...in space should mean ...in space, and not ...in atmosphere, yet technically they fit (as would Stars, Sun, Moon, other planets, Black hole, etc. if you are going by named areas or objects). They seem to be template overextension, and lessen the template's unique purpose. And why would a link to the section of the entry directly in front of it be good template usage? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) The outer layers of the atmosphere, where mean free path becomes extremely large, are much more appropriate to a discussion of the space environment (particularly the part relevant to humans) than a random assortment of astronomical objects. I agree that the latter would not belong on this template.

2) There is nothing wrong with linking to sections when doing so assists navigation. Space exposure was until recently a separate article from Effect of spaceflight on the human body, and could still justifiably be such – the effects of vacuum, radiation, and extreme temperature outside a spacecraft are a completely separate area of discourse from the effects of microgravity in space habitation. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 16:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good points. I've actually changed my mind about including the atmospheric overlap with space while mulling this over from time to time today. Technically the environment of space does include forces and conditions, such as Earth's atmosphere would apply. Along those lines, and within the "new normal" for the definition of '...in space' presented here (which would also apply to enlarging the List of topics in space page), I'll add Electromagnetic radiation, Interstellar medium, Solar wind, Stellar wind, and Heliosphere to the template. Will also move sections around, please take a look if they make sense when I'm done with the two edits, as the 'Environment' section seems a little out-of-concept flow where it is and seems better going last so the first three sections relate to human culture. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out electromagnetic radiation because the article is not specific to space. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]