Template talk:Spaceport

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. (sdsds - talk) 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to edit this template to shorten the names from e.g. "Baikonur Cosmodrome" to "Baikonur" and from "Kennedy Space Center" to "Kennedy", etc. There are two motivations for this:

1. The terseness would be a good thing in an already large and ever-growing template.
2. Spellings of some terms (e.g. "centre") can be controversial, whereas spellings of place names are slightly less so.

Before making the edit, maybe we should take a straw poll to get some sense of whether this change to the template would be at all controversial. (sdsds - talk) 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• support - as proposer. (sdsds - talk) 20:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - In the case of "Kennedy", Kennedy what? JFK the man? the AIrport? the carrier? No need to be ambiguous here. Also, Kennedy Space Center is its name. How can its name be controversial? That's like saying the surname "Johnston" is controversial because there are people named "Johnson", and some people might be confused. Nams are generally spelled one way only , especially in the case of an official name. - BillCJ (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It will be obvious, because of the context. In the context of spaceports, it is obviously the launch site. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps you should read WP:Obvious. Granted, the links will (or at least should) take one to the right article, but still, there are other things tht can be doen to make the template smaller, and these should be considered too. - BillCJ (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 08:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but grudgingly so. Making it terser is a good thing given the size of the template. BUT... the centre/center issue is a non-issue, as those words are an integral part of the place name and should never change regardless of whose version of English is being used. Rhialto (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - except for the ones where the place name is not in English, and the translation is open to interpretation, which is the case for about 90% of these (eg. Xichang will be called 西昌卫星发射中心 or Xīchāng Weìxīng Fāshè Zhōngxīn, by Chinese people, not Xichang Satellite Launch Centre or Xichang Satellite Launch Center). --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The template is currently quite long; shortening the names should compact it considerably.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: Since the template is labeled "Spaceports", shortening and abbreviating is OK. Kennedy Space Center could be shortened to Kennedy SC for example. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per BillCJ. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current ones are perfectly suitable names. They explain what the article is about. --MoRsE (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is much than can be done to make the template shorter without shortening the names. The image on the right seems to prevent the names from extending accross the template field properly, and other formatting tweaks can be done. The template needs to be in default-hidden mode so it's not too long all the time. Also, I don't like the new navbox-general format which puts the headings on the left, as this adds to making the template longer. However, a few editors imposed there preferneces on navbox formatting without consulting many of the editors who actually use them, and I'm not sure they would "allow" us to change the navbox formating here. - BillCJ (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.