Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Realistic add-ons"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The name is open ended and the content type confusing. It should be deleted and replaced by two categories: - ''Real'' and ''Ficticious but possible with today's technology'' - obviously the names will need tweaking. --[[User:GW Simulations|GW_Simulations]] 19:42, 18 March 2006 (MSK) | The name is open ended and the content type confusing. It should be deleted and replaced by two categories: - ''Real'' and ''Ficticious but possible with today's technology'' - obviously the names will need tweaking. --[[User:GW Simulations|GW_Simulations]] 19:42, 18 March 2006 (MSK) | ||
| + | :I disagree, I don't think there's a need to differentiate between, say, Soyuz TMA and Hotol on the basis that one was never built. Realisitc should be defined in its header as meaning realisitc with today's technology, though, not realistic if you presume carbon nano-tubes can be made that are 30,000km long, etc. --[[User:BadWolf|BadWolf]] 20:32, 18 March 2006 (MSK) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | --[[User: | + | :I disagree too, realistic addons is a valid category. Realistic should be understood as realistic because it was already build or can be build based on todays experience. A good indicator would be the time it is planned to get into service. If this date is further in the future than 10 years, the designers have more Unk-Unks than known unknowns to solve. |
| − | + | ||
| + | :Also, i would like to discourage from too many good-intended deletion nominations. We only have very few articles yet. Please try to limit delete requests only to articles, which are not related to orbiter or categories, which are not fitting into the current category layout.--[[User:Urwumpe|Urwumpe]] 22:45, 18 March 2006 (MSK) | ||
Revision as of 19:45, 18 March 2006
Deletion
The name is open ended and the content type confusing. It should be deleted and replaced by two categories: - Real and Ficticious but possible with today's technology - obviously the names will need tweaking. --GW_Simulations 19:42, 18 March 2006 (MSK)
- I disagree, I don't think there's a need to differentiate between, say, Soyuz TMA and Hotol on the basis that one was never built. Realisitc should be defined in its header as meaning realisitc with today's technology, though, not realistic if you presume carbon nano-tubes can be made that are 30,000km long, etc. --BadWolf 20:32, 18 March 2006 (MSK)
- I disagree too, realistic addons is a valid category. Realistic should be understood as realistic because it was already build or can be build based on todays experience. A good indicator would be the time it is planned to get into service. If this date is further in the future than 10 years, the designers have more Unk-Unks than known unknowns to solve.
- Also, i would like to discourage from too many good-intended deletion nominations. We only have very few articles yet. Please try to limit delete requests only to articles, which are not related to orbiter or categories, which are not fitting into the current category layout.--Urwumpe 22:45, 18 March 2006 (MSK)