This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide toEuropean topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofspaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
This article iswritten inBritish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour,travelled,centre,defence,artefact,analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from othervarieties of English. According to therelevant style guide, this should not be changed withoutbroad consensus.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
Cosmic Vision → European Space Agency Science Programme,No consensus, 6 April 2019 (Discussion)
European Space Agency Science Programme → Cosmic Vision,No consensus, 15 July 2019 (Discussion)
There isno consensus due to lack of participation. Proposer is recommended to beWP:BOLD and move it themselves, perWP:CONSENSUS. --QEDK (後 ☕桜) 14:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cosmic Vision →European Space Agency Science Programme – I'm proposing a change in scope to not only document theCosmic Vision programme, but also the precedingHorizon 2000 andHorizon 2000+ programmes, and the upcomingVoyage 2050 programme. The European Space Agency likes to refer to these programmes generally as "planning cycles" in the "Science Programme"[1][2][3][4], so this new name seems to be the most appropriate name for such an article. I intend to do most of the heavy lifting if this is agreed upon. All sixteen members listed onWikipedia:WikiProject Europe/ESA have been pinged to this discussion. –PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews) 01:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)--Relisting.SITH(talk)16:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowan Forest: My guess is that you're confused by the naming, even though I had clarified this in my original proposal, along with four citations from ESA. Here's another two citations that I hope clarifies it even more; this page from the ESA Industry Portal[5] discusses how "The Science Programme has a long and successful history, starting with theHorizon 2000 Programme that lasted 20 years, from 1985–2005. This was followed by theHorizon 2000+ Programme from 2005–2015, leading to the currentCosmic Vision Programme to 2025.", and this ESA Media Page[6] that describesHorizon 2000,Horizon 2000+,Cosmic Vision, andVoyage 2050 as "planning cycles" of "The Science Programme of the European Space Agency (ESA)". –PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews)13:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unilateral and spurious move The editor ignored opposition. The Cosmic Vision program exists as such. This is akin to going to some random NASA program (Discovery, New Frontiers, etc) and renaming it "NASA Science program", AND spending absolutely no effort in editing the article itself or justifying the move in any coherent way. As NASA, ESA has hundred of "science programs", and this one is called Cosmic Vision. The history section gives a good overview.Rowan Forest (talk)21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowan Forest: I apologise that I didn't attend to updating the page sooner than I did, as I had simply forgotten about this page as I had been swamped with other priorities. A simple message fired my way reminding me about this article would've been appreciated, though – yourimproper cut-and-paste job unnecessarily split the revision history of the article. Hopefully my{{Histmerge}} request will fix that problem. It should also be noted that I hadn't "ignored opposition", as I had replied to you twice asking for both clarification and to better understand my proposal, and you never responded, as evidenced in the archived move discussion above. In addition, the original move was not "unilateral and spurious", as I had simply followed the recommendation of the discussion's closer,QEDK, who wrote "Proposer is recommended to be [bold] and move [the page] themselves..." –PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews)08:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a hypocritical apology of a spurious move and revert. The "European Space Agency Science Programme" you mention does not exist as you present it. But I can't fight SToOpid any longer. I know you. Go at it.Rowan Forest (talk)15:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowan Forest: I'm disappointed that an editor of your experience is talking to other people in the manner that you are. Just because people have differing points of view from you doesn't mean that they're "SToOpid". I cited my claims as to the structure of the Scientific Programme, with six different citations from European Space Agency-published sources nonetheless.Ignoring arguments, making disruptive edits, andmaking personal attacks are not acceptable responses to that. You should know better than this. –PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews)01:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose – Cosmic Vision is one of four campaigns, or sub-programs, in a broader Science Programme. This article is about that broader programme throughout its entire history, rather than just Cosmic Vision. The "Science Programme", or alternatively the "ESA Science Programme" or "ESA's Science Programme" are the only names I could find verifiable sources on which refer to the programme as a whole, from the 1980s to now. "Cosmic Vision" has never been used to refer to the programme as a whole. As detailed in the previous move discussion, the European Space Agency refers to "Horizon 2000", "Horizon 2000 Plus", "Cosmic Vision" and "Voyage 2050" as "planning cycles" in the "Science Programme", and here are the sources I mentioned earlier, both contemporary and historical –[1][2][3][4][5]. In an additional source, ESA describes the programme in the following manner; "The Science Programme has a long and successful history, starting with theHorizon 2000 Programme that lasted 20 years, from 1985–2005. This was followed by theHorizon 2000+ Programme from 2005–2015, leading to the currentCosmic Vision Programme to 2025."[6]. –PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews)04:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthony Appleyard: I assume that's a typo, and you meantScience programme of the European Space Agency? The current title was chosen because it was the mostmost concise option, really. The programme has been mostly referred to by ESA as the "Science Programme" and/or the "ESA Science Programme". Since "Science Programme" isnot at all precise, and neither is "ESA", since the acronymn isshared by many topics including scientific organisations, the "ESA" in "ESA Science Programme" was simply expanded to "European Space Agency Science Programme" to disambiguate. "Science programme of the European Space Agency" adds two more words than needed to describe the topic, and since "Science Programme" is actually aproper name, it must be capitalised. –PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews)00:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dealing with Terry is useless. It has always been. As if ESA only had one single science program that encompasses everything they do.Rowan Forest (talk)23:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowan Forest: I never said a single programme encompassedeverything they do. I've said thatHorizon 2000,Horizon 2000 Plus,Cosmic Vision, andVoyage 2050 are part of a single continuity in a programme ESA calls the "Science Programme". I've cited this numerous times with many ESA sources.Making even more personal attacks in lieu of presenting any actual source that explicitly states thatHorizon 2000,Horizon 2000 Plus,Cosmic Vision, andVoyage 2050 arenot predecessors or successors to each other and arenot part of a single larger programme is poor form. –PhilipTerryGraham (talk·articles·reviews)00:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Cosmic Vision is the latest of multiple long-term space science programs, referred to by the ESA as planning cycles, implemented thus far under the "Science Programme", which the ESA has repeatedly used as aproper name for the whole effort. Documents like[1] and[2] show that the ESA has distinguished a named, organized programme under the Science Programme Committee encompassing specific space science missions under directed prerogatives and excluding other ESA science programs for decades. Rescoping the pre-existing Cosmic Vision article to one about the Science Programme as a whole is indeed abold change (and I personally would have created a new article for the Science Programme and stuck amain template in the Cosmic Vision section directing to the Cosmic Vision article), but it is a change that introduces an important historical context linkingHorizon 2000,Horizon 2000+,Cosmic Vision, andVision 2050 together in a way not previously made explicit by the Cosmic Vision andList of European Space Agency programs and missions articles. In any case, the current state of the article as is covers much more than the Cosmic Vision program alone, which makes moving the page back harder to justify now.Yiosie235617:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
.svg)
