Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Notability of Manastu Space

@Sneha04: You are reverting me on Manastu Space quoting WP:NLIST. Since you look new enough, I would like to help you interpret that a redlink or a wikilink is not a measure of WP:NLIST or entire WP:N itself (nor it is mentioned anywhere there either). It's degree of notability which determines whether the item should be included in list and a higher degree of notability is required to create a standalone article for the topic. I left a redlink there since I was drafting the article. Even if I wasn't, it wouldn't affect notability at all. We have enough to document is notability, even include this in a standalone article. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/business-tech/a-fuel-tank-in-space/article65085509.ece https://m.economictimes.com/news/science/start-up-offers-superior-propulsion-systems-plans-to-set-up-fuel-stations-in-space/articleshow/91050136.cms https://www.wionews.com/india-news/green-fuel-powered-satellite-engine-made-by-indian-start-up-manastu-to-reach-orbit-by-early-2023-473025/ https://www.wionews.com/india-news/isro-chairman-dr-s-somanath-recalls-his-early-days-at-isro-what-it-takes-to-be-a-space-scientist-472764/ https://www.thebetterindia.com/241908/manastu-space-mumbai-startup-iit-bombay-isro-drdo-i-booster-satellite-propulsion-system-innovation-him16/

I hope you won't mind that I'm going to revert you again if you don't yourself since I'm considering my case obviously OK. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I anyway have spent enough time in grooming ISRO, created pages of Indian aerospace company and written most of this article too. Would be gladly welcoming refining edits. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all please be civil when you talk. Quoting your word "Since you look new enough" is not decent way to address fellow editor and to build a Good faith Consensus. Even if you suppose me to be new, it doesn't matter here. One should talk about article issues on article talk page and not judge one's experience. I understand Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines enough and know to where WP:NLIST, WP:N, WP:STANDALONE applies.
One more unsolicited advice : Please Don't be uncivil in Edit Summaries when it doesn't meant reasonably correct or the consensus yet not reached. see WP:SUMMARYNO
Again, You have reverted my edits without having consensus built upon it. This edit [1] was clearly not adhering to WP:QUO . Quoting guideline "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away" .
"Editors should not revert simply because of disagreement. Instead, explore alternative methods, such as raising objections on a talk page or following the processes in dispute resolution."
But you continued Edit Warring.
Moreover, Quoting more words "I anyway have spent enough time in grooming ISRO, created pages of Indian aerospace company and written most of this article too", hope you know WP:OWNERSHIP, Soo many irrelevant statements regarding the issue.
Now, Check out WP:LISTCRITERIA , what it states :
Quoting guidelines
1. "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion"
2. "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever."
So, Before using these statements like, "Since you look new enough", "WP:NLIST has nothing to do with redlinks. Nor creating a standalone article establishes any notability", "I'm going to revert you again if you don't yourself", one have to know opinions are subjective and not to polarise the outcome of consensus by showing "Experience Criteria" and "Ownership Tones". Please don't act like WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I hope it is pretty much clear to you now.
So, should I call for an RfC then or look for other ways of dispute resolution? Please be reasonable with words.
Cheers, Sneha04 💬 08:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't make sense of your aggression since when I say "May I help you" to new fellows, I'm assuming good faith actually.
As far as WP:QUO is concerned, I have contradicted you in WP:NLIST effectively. So, I didn't hesitate in reverting that as per WP:BRD. Indeed I'm just citing my contribution on these articles which were entirely or mostly written by me, nominated for GA and DYK and I won't add just any random clutter here.
Also,
"1. "As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion"

As quoted in mainstream media, this entry was not promotional at all.

2. "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever."

As I told before, article is being drafted. You anyway removed entire entry and not redlink quoting WP:NLIST.

So, Before using these statements like, "Since you look new enough", "WP:NLIST has nothing to do with redlinks."

You just can't misinterpret WP policies and just sideline people blaming of bullying and ownership whoever explain it you. You have to be competent. WP:WIKILAWYERING won't work. You made this edit and it was reverted. Now per WP:BRD you are supposed to discuss it before you would be restoring it. I have explained my reason, now it is your choice to provide a better explanation or use WP:DR but I think this matter is too trivial for that. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you were not reasonable with words to support your redlinks addition to list.
All along I avoided discussing policy or theory on first place, and were applying reasoning or trying to negotiate consensus with WP:LISTCRITERIA but you misinterpreted policies and acted like WP:ICANTHEARYOU and compelled to discuss policies around it.
Quoting 1, "You just can't misinterpret WP policies and just sideline people blaming of bullying and ownership whoever explain it you.", "As far as WP:QUO is concerned, I have contradicted you in WP:NLIST effectively. So, I didn't hesitate in reverting that as per WP:BRD."
Now, Please have a look that what it seems like "misinterpreting", As per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, (somewhat dependable method for dispute resolution not recommended though) it was performed by me in first place, see this edit [2] and you were welcomed to discuss on talk page. This rule is applied when one seek for consensus not when there is an ongoing effort for building good faith consensus for the issue. See WP:BRD-NOT. So your reason for reverting, "So, I didn't hesitate in reverting that as per WP:BRD." doesn't stand here.
Quoting 2, "I can't make sense of your aggression", "You just can't misinterpret WP policies and just sideline people blaming of bullying and ownership whoever explain it you", "WP:WIKILAWYERING won't work."
Aren't these personal attacks? Are these words shows Good Faith to fellow editors or checking competency? I am not using wikipedia's policies to make my point or WP:WIKILAWYERING, because there is my effort for building encyclopedia with collaboration by adhering to policies, as the rule clearly states, "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.", so I was suggesting in Good faith not to add redlinks entries like you said "just any random clutter" on list without having the article prepared.
Quoting 3, "You made this edit [3] and it was reverted. Now per WP:BRD you are supposed to discuss it before you would be restoring it."
Here Again, I removed it following WP:LISTCRITERIA. The involved editor didn't asked for good faith consensus so I'm not supposed to discuss it. There need to be a seperate discussion for it with a new section and it won't help building consensus regarding the issue being discussed right now.
Quoting 4, "you anyway removed entire entry and not redlink quoting WP:NLIST."
The redlink comes with the informations for the rest of the domains of the list. So if any editor removes the redlinks it follows the removal of the rest related to it, otherwise it won't make sense.
Quoting 5, "Indeed I'm just citing my contribution on these articles which were entirely or mostly written by me, nominated for GA and DYK"
You continued Ownership behavioural tone for example statements like "I created/wrote the majority of this article." given at WP:OWNBEHAVIOR
So, as it is perceived right now, you are discussing policy or theory and not here to make a good faith consensus since you reverted my edits without being reasonable and then acting like WP:ICANTHEARYOU, accusing me of "sidelining people blaming of bullying and ownership", personal attacking throughout the discussion by not assuming Good Faith actually and blaming with WP:WIKILAWYERING, I will take to relevant discussion board then. Sneha04 💬 16:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responses by uninvolved editors

I am not sure that it reaches notability yet but the company certainly exists and links such as below indicate that it is worthy to be included on this page.

As a personal perspective I am okay with red links (as long as they are not the only one on a good article nominee, etc.) as they are a glorious possibility, an opportunity for future growth in the same way that I like the template Template:R with possibilities. Gusfriend (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Created the redirect for Manastu Space with {{R with possibilities}} Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your opinion. Although, addition to list is some sort of different from using Template:R with possibilities, it may serve as temporary solution. Sneha04 💬 13:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Raymond3023 and expanded by Aman.kumar.goel. Nominated by Aman.kumar.goel (talk) at 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is not a full review, just a comment, but I'm not sure this is ready to go. While an "expand" tag is fine, the "rewrite" tag is considered enough of a danger sign to generally stop an article from appearing on the front page at all. I realize you stuck it there yourself, but please resolve the issue. Additionally, I think the article has some mixed focus. The article should, in my opinion, specifically be on the industry side - corporations, factories, construction, that kind of thing, yet there's some parts that just seem to recap what ISRO has done. I realize that ISRO contracts are probably very closely tied to this, but I'd be careful about drawing a line to avoid repetition or unclear focus. Finally, I think the hook can use some work - what does launching a satellite "for" a country even mean? Were these contracts with national governments other than India? Or just any business involving entities from outside India? Did these launches use homegrown tech, or were these pre-assembled gear from elsewhere that just happened to be launched in India because it's at the right latitude? Source isn't really clear, it seems like puffery. SnowFire (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aman.kumar.goel: Did you see the above? Per the instructions, please add the nomination page to the watchlist to see comments. If you disagree with my comments that's fine but some sort of response is expected to avoid a reject on the hook. SnowFire (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* the "rewrite" tag is considered enough of a danger sign to generally stop an article from appearing on the front page at all. It was me actually. I yet have planned to expand article and rewrite that section in a much better. But not have been getting sufficient time for a while. Better I do it now. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire You may further proceed your reveiw now. Regards Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay - your ping didn't seem to work, and as noted before, the above was just a comment, not a full review. That said, if you'd like me to do the review, sure, I can, but the original problem I brought up remains that the hook isn't very good, in my opinion. "Number of countries" is just not a useful metric here, it's very press release hypey, at least not without further clarification. The companies involved in producing an iPhone stretch through many countries; it's not a big deal. Are there any alternate hooks? Or are there any better sources than that Times of India article that actually clarify, in detail, what is actually being measured by this "for 33 countries"? SnowFire (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like that I agree with you that number of countries looks a bit advert. Since the number is dynamic as well, I better get rid of it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a review but I'd suggest that the article be given a copyedit as the grammar feels off at times. The promotional tone mentioned above also seems to still exist and would need to be addressed before this nomination can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a request at WP:GOCE/R. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any update here on article quality / alternate hook ideas / prose quality? Leaning toward a reject, it's been a month or so and DYK is intended for the newest entries. No shame in not making DYK if the article just needs more time. SnowFire (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting for someone at GOCE to take a look at this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! I'm from the GOCE and I wanted to let you know that I just completed a copyedit of the article. Best of luck on the nomination! Aerin17 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article has received a GOCE copyedit, a new review can be done. Courtesy ping Snowfire. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw, yes. We still have the issue of an appropriate hook. I also still think that some of the article, including the lede, focuses on some inappropriate metrics like "number of startups". Anyway, in the realm of more easily measurable thing, I think the raw number of satellites works better than the number of countries. Maybe something like this - thoughts, @Aman.kumar.goel: ?
    ALT1: ... that the space industry of India has supported the launch of more than 100 domestic satellites and more than 300 foreign satellites?
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowFire (talk • contribs) 06:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice clean up! The Alt1 hook is verified to the Times of India article. The article is new enough, long enough, and is now within policy. Aman.kumar.goel should get credit for considerably expanding and improving; and Raymond3023 for creating the article.4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Space_industry_of_India