Talk:Kepler space telescope

No fuel gauge, needs to reorient to send back data ?

In March 2018 it was unknown if Kepler had sufficient propellant for operation until end 2018. [1]. That link also implies it must reorient before transmitting bulk data back to earth. Was that true for the primary mission pre-2014 ? Communications does not mention this reorientation for communications - Is/was the high gain antenna steerable ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently the HGA is not steerable. Kepler press kit p16 says "Once per month, the spacecraft stops taking data for one day, re-orientates the spacecraft to point the high-gain antenna at the Earth and downlinks the science data."

Now in the K2 mission (with fewer reaction wheels) it needs hydrazine to reorient for data comms - was that true when all 4 reaction wheels were working ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Kepler space telescope. See general agreement below that this article should have disambiguation other than "(spacecraft)". The common name does appear to be "Kepler", so the "space telescope" works as natural disambiguation. There may come a time in the future when "Kepler Space Telescope" becomes the common name; however, that does not seem to be the case at present. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  21:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Kepler (spacecraft) → Kepler Space Telescope – Wikipedia's guidelines on precision and disambiguation state that "using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources" would be an appropriate way to disambiguate a subject. "Kepler Space Telescope" is a common name for the spacecraft under guidelines for commonly recognisable names, and precise enough to distinguish from the Johannes Kepler ATV spacecraft. "Kepler spacecraft" has 3.6 million results on Google, while "Kepler Space Telescope" has just as many, at 3.9 million results on Google. "Kepler Space Telescope" has been officialy used by NASA and SETI to describe the spacecraft, along with numerous third party sources (ABC News, Sky and Telescope, Space.com, The Verge). "Kepler Space Telescope" would also harmonise well and be consistent with similar space telescope missions, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Spitzer Space Telescope, and the James Webb Space Telescope. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support [edit: Kepler (space telescope)] per nom [edit:and per discussion below], this is a space telescope by any definition. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support -Telescope or Observatory, as done at Chandra X-ray Observatory and Hubble Space Telescope. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Did Kepler ever spot snow forming in an exoplanet atmosphere? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The proper name of this vehicle is "Kepler", not "Kepler Space Telescope". Firstly the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight has its own guide on article naming which has become the standard for spacecraft on Wikipedia, if disambiguation is required "(spacecraft)" is the preferred disambiguator. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Article titles. Secondly the google results search is flawed since the correct name is "Kepler", not "Kepler spacecraft", spacecraft is merely in the article title to disambiguate here. Thus the search is missing many results for "Kepler" alone (I realise this is difficult to separate from references to for instance Johannes Kepler but the point of severe under-counting remains). More to the point both the google search and the articles listed by the proposer with reference to all initial caps "Kepler Space Telescope" make clear within the body of the text they are referring to the "Kepler space telescope". Note the lack of capitalisation of "space" and "telescope" indicating they are not part of the proper noun. "space telescope" is merely a common noun, while the proper noun "Kepler" is being used as a Noun adjunct, a sentence construct meaning "Kepler" is a type of space telescope. Compare this to articles about Hubble where the full proper name "Hubble Space Telescope" is capitalised in prose, e.g. Hubble Space Telescope: Pictures, Facts & History and many more. The proposition is simply incorrect based on a misunderstanding of grammar, Kepler has a different naming convention to both the Hubble Space Telescope and JWST. KST is not the official proper name and the present title is correct and conforms to standard disambiguation practice. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Further we should probably look at what NASA itself says. Note NASA does not use capitalised "Kepler Space Telescope" (except in title case), [2]. In fact the phrase doesn't even exist in NASA's manuals on the spacecraft. E.g. [3] or [4]. The name NASA uses is Kepler, or Kepler Mission. Again, compare with Hubble What Is the Hubble Space Telescope? where HST is the official proper name. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The "Space Telescope" part isn't commonly used in papers or conference presentations on the mission's results. In fact, it's rarely if ever used by anyone who was involved in the mission or working on the data. The comparison to Hubble is a good one, since the people involved normally call it "HST", making "Space Telescope" an accepted as well as official part of Hubble's name. No one calls Kepler "KST". Fcrary (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – Indeed, this particular telescope is never called "Kepler Space Telescope" (capitalized) in sources. It is, however, a space telescope, and I would support a move to Kepler (space telescope) or just Kepler (telescope) to provide a more informative disambiguator than just "(spacecraft)". I don't think this case should rely too much on the WP:SPACENAME guideline, which has not been debated by the community of spaceflight editors since 2011. For example, a key bullet point of the guideline says to avoid including the "name of the manufacturer" and quotes SpaceX Dragon as a name to avoid, preferring Dragon (spacecraft), however the community has since decided to name that article "SpaceX Dragon" and the example was removed from the guideline.[5] — JFG ^talk 23:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The spacecraft is Kepler. A move to Kepler space telescope or Kepler (space telescope) might work, tho I'd rather it stay, because that's what the official name is. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support "Kepler (space telescope)" – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 02:03, 9 February 2019 (
• Support Kepler spacecraft just sounds kind of wrong as its primary mission is not to explore the solar system, but rather extra-solar planets. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That confuses me. Spacecraft can do or study many things, not just the solar system. A communications satellite, for example, is a spacecraft. Space telescopes are just a particular sort of spacecraft. Fcrary (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand why Kepler (space telescope) is superior to Kepler space telescope here. In fact, if it is just a question of having a disambiguator appended, that includes unnecessary disambiguation, so we may as well use Kepler (telescope). Dekimasuよ! 04:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I would normally support the shortest possible disambiguator, but Kepler (telescope) might lead to confusion with the Keplerian telescope design, hence I believe we do need to call this article Kepler (space telescope). — JFG ^talk 07:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I would not object to either disambiguation. But making "space telescope" part of the name itself implies it is part of the name. That wasn't common usage by NASA, the project or the scientists involved. (With, I know, some NASA web pages and press releases; I'm talking about official documents and things like that.) Fcrary (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proper name is Kepler, not Kepler Space Telescope, as ChiZeroOne explains well. I see no reason to not leave the title as "Kepler (spacecraft)", as (spacecraft) is the common disambiguator for articles on Wikipedia. For that matter, I'd personally like to see any (satellite) disambigs changed to (spacecraft) for the sake of further standardisation. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – FWIW - yes - agree with comments supporting oppose above - seems the current (original and official) name, ie. "Kepler (spacecraft)", is the better name imo as well - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support NASA's official mission page https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/kepler/main/index.html uses the term "Kepler Space Telescope" four times, particularly in connection with the end of the mission. This suggests NASA's usage has evolved to prefer, or at least accept, the term Kepler Space Telescope. Our naming guideline (WP:NCDAB) suggests "Natural disambiguation" as the first choice: "When there is another term (such as Apartment instead of Flat) or more complete name (such as English language instead of English) that is unambiguous, commonly used in English (even without being the most common term), and equally clear, that term is typically the best to use."... "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation..." Kepler (spacecraft) would still exist as a redirect, so readers searching for "Kepler" will get to this page as easily, indeed more so since Kepler Space Telescope will likely pop up as one of the choices. I think Kepler Space Telescope better serves our readers.--agr (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As previously noted, NASA's web pages only capitalize "Space Telescope" in titles. In text, it is not capitalized, and by implication a description of Kepler, not part of the name. Nor is NASA as monolithic as you suggest. The usage by the public outreach people who put together web pages has nothing to do with official names. Try looking at the professional publications by the people who worked on the project. Fcrary (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Kepler space telescope" as the title. The point is that NASA uses the term frequently. Our guidelines say that if the official name is ambiguous, using a common term in plain English is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. What's wrong with that?--agr (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the official name is not ambiguous. When NASA's media relations people use the term "Kepler space telescope" they are not using the official name. The official name is the one that shows up in the NASA budget and other official documents, and that's just Kepler. Fcrary (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The name Kepler is ambiguous in the context of Wikipedia as a whole, because it has many possible meanings. Plain Kepler links to the astronomer. We have Kepler (disambiguation) that lists all the possibilities. This happens a lot in a general purpose encyclopedia, so we have to disambiguate in those cases. That's why this article is currently called Kepler (spacecraft). There are several ways to disambiguate and we have a guideline (WP:NCDAB) on the preferred ways to do this. Using a categorical name in parentheses, which is what we have now, is not the preferred way. It's geeky and less easily understood by our readers. If there is a more natural disambiguation, that's preferred. The suggestion is that "Kepler space telescope" would be more natural. It's standard English and tells the reader more clearly what the subject of the article is. No doubt that is why NASA media relations uses the term. Their goal is the same as ours, addressing the general public. We can make clear that "Kepler" is the official name in the first sentence and by using lower case, as you point out, in the title.--agr (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Proper names for spacecraft (or space telescopes) are italicized

There have been several edits on Feb. 22 and 23 to "removed more italics per page title move." Last time I checked, the convention for spacecraft (and space telescopes) was to italicize proper names (Galileo, Cassini, Spitzer) and not italicize acronyms or descriptive names (InSight, Mars Global Surveyor.) So I think the name in this article should be "Kepler space telescope" (with italics), at leas in the body of the text, since that's a proper name, and "K2" (no italics) for the extended mission, since that's an abbreviation for Kepler 2. Fcrary (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Kepler should be italicized per usual MOS conventions. — JFG ^talk 19:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Spacecraft are italicized, not space telescopes. See Hubble Space Telescope, Spitzer Space Telescope, and James Webb Space Telescope. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We went through this with the discussion about renaming this article. Hubble Space Telescope is the full, formal name of that mission. Kepler is the full, formal name for this one. Adding "space telescope" (in lower case) is an informal and unofficial usage. The only reason there was a consensus to change the name of the article was because there are several Kepler spacecraft, and adding the informal "space telescope" makes the name less ambiguous. Unless you also want to start calling it KST (as Hubble is often called HST), you can't draw the parallel you're insisting on.Fcrary (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's a mission name it's not italicized. If it's a space telescope it's not a spacecraft, and is not italicized. Either way, this one isn't italicized. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Not for anything, but from the lead:

Kepler is a retired space telescope launched by NASA to discover Earth-size planets orbiting other stars. Named after astronomer Johannes Kepler, the spacecraft was launched on March 7, 2009, into an Earth-trailing heliocentric orbit.

(My emphasis on "space telescope" and "spacecraft", plus the link to "spacecraft" is mine.) If it was just a space telescope, then no italics; however, if Kepler was also a "spacecraft", then yes, its common name should be in italics. So it must be decided whether or not Kepler was indeed a spacecraft as well as an ST. Sources consistently refer to it as a mission, as well as a telescope, as well as a spacecraft, isn't that so? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  01:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd guess the 'spacecraft' in the lead and elsewhere was missed in the very limited clean-up of the page after the name change (the page is in need of updating present-and-past tense language as well). The Kepler telescope seems in the same classification as the Hubble, James Webb, and Spitzer telescopes - they are near-Earth astronomical platforms. Spacecraft usually are going somewhere. The space telescopes, like the International Space Station, are either parked in near-Earth vicinity or orbit the Sun (Sun-orbiters Kepler and Spitzer drift further away from Earth on a yearly basis) and then do their work as telescopes. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It does not matter whether Kepler is called a telescope or a spacecraft; it does not matter where it is orbiting. The only relevant question is "what is the name of this thing?". We have established that the object is named Kepler, not KST, therefore it mus be italicized, not only per our own WP:MOS, but also from majority usage in sources, starting with NASA. See for example citation 1 of our article, "Kepler: NASA’s First Mission Capable of Finding Earth-Size Planets",[6] where NASA itself uses italics for Kepler and standard type for the rest of the title. — JFG ^talk 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, also because it is OR to leave it at "Spacecraft are usually going somewhere," (?) when reliable secondary sources such as NYT and Space.com consistently refer to Kepler as a "spacecraft". Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  10:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Another mixed-italics use article: the space telescope Herschel Space Observatory, which should be stabilized at either italics or no italics. "Herschel" is now often italicized as a stand-alone word, but should it be? Not everything placed into space is a spacecraft. For example, 'Hubble' has not been italicized on Wikipedia when used as a single word because Hubble is a telescope placed above Earth's atmosphere for optimum viewing. It is not a functional spacecraft, it is a telescope. Arguably the Hubble precedent on Wikipedia should apply to all space telescope articles, including the now correctly named Kepler. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

From the spacecraft article:

"Orbital vehicle" redirects here. For other uses, see Orbital vehicle (disambiguation).

A spacecraft is a vehicle or machine designed to fly in outer space. Spacecraft are used for a variety of purposes, including communications, earth observation, meteorology, navigation, space colonization, planetary exploration, and transportation of humans and cargo. All spacecraft except single-stage-to-orbit vehicles cannot get into space on their own, and require a launch vehicle (carrier rocket).

You're arguing against both the definition of "spacecraft" and the information provided by reliable sources. Why? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  12:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Apollo missions aren't italicized, although they used recognizable spacecraft. The word 'Hubble' is not italicized when referring to the space telescope (although it seems Herschel is, which actually should be unitalicized). Most satellites aren't italicized, yet they fit the stated definition of spacecraft. The line we draw to adhere or not adhere to guideline language is not clear, and exceptions for space telescopes is routine. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Kepler is the name of both the mission and the spacecraft. That is the tradition for missions and the spacecraft within the Discovery Program. A spacecraft is anything which is orbit, whether it's in orbit around the Earth, the Sun, another planet or a moon. Space telescopes are a type of spacecraft. That's the general usage by everyone. I work with people who study the Earth's magnetosphere, and their data comes from Earth orbiting "spacecraft." People in my building also study the Earth's upper atmosphere using Earth orbiting "spacecraft." Frequently, spacecraft and satellite are used interchangeably, but no one worries about that. An artificial satellite and a spacecraft are the same thing. If you look at the hardware, they are all very similar: Attitude control systems, power, telecommunications, scientific instruments (if they have them, commercial spacecraft may not) and even propulsion. Consider the GRACE and GRAIL missions. GRACE was a pair of identical spacecraft (or satellites, note that the Wikipedia page uses the words interchangeably, just as I said was common use) to map the Earth's gravitational field. GRAIL was a near-identical copy sent to orbit the Moon and map its gravitational field. Are you seriously saying one wasn't a pair of "spacecraft" because it orbited the Earth, but the other, identically designed pair, were "spacecraft" because they went to the Moon? That just doesn't make sense. Fcrary (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Neither GRAIL or GRACE are italicized on Wikipedia. Nor is Hubble. There are many variants of italics on space mission articles here, maybe an overall discussion on the wikiproject could be beneficial. It sounds like you have one of the best work environments in the world, which is cool. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The usual practice, as I've seen it, is to italicize spacecraft names if they are proper nouns, like the name of a person, mythological figure or place. If the name is an acronym, it isn't italicized, even if some clever person made up an acronym which spells out a proper name. GRACE is formally the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment; GRAIL is the Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory. Apollo, by the way, was not italicized because it was a program, not a spacecraft. The individual spacecraft, like Eagle (Apollo 11, LM-5) and Odyssey (Apollo 13, CSM-109.) are italicized.

And, just because it annoys me, a Wikipedia editor could claim Juno should not be italicized. Despite repeated public statements by the PI, some idiot said in a NASA-published dictionary of acronyms that it's a backronym for "Jupiter Near-polar Orbiter." Even though that's wrong (it is and always was pure polar), and contradicts the PI's statements, that's a published reference while edits based nature of the orbit would be original research and PI's statements weren't published. So I can't fix that Wikipedia page... Fcrary (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. After two relists, it is clear that there is a lack of any sort of consensus here.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Kepler space telescope → Kepler Space Telescope – Per Wikipedia's guidelines on consistent article titles, harmonising with articles such as Hubble Space Telescope, Spitzer Space Telescope, James Webb Space Telescope, Origins Space Telescope, Sentinel Space Telescope, ect. In last year's discussion, the argument against the capitalisation of "space telescope" was that it was only capitalised in title case. This is not true however, as the capitalised name appears in the prose of some of NASA's articles, and numerous third party articles such as those from astronomy and science-oriented publications, along with other miscellaneous reliable sources.

References

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. В²C ☎ 19:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Neutral [January 23 edit, per discussion] per well researched nomination, adequate sourcing for the proposed change. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Less Unless (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Nom does not seem to have looked at MOS:CAPS. The criterion is not "appears in the prose of some of NASA's articles" and such, but rather "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". Lowercase is actually very common in sources, as even a web search or news search makes immediately clear. Even NASA doesn't cap it, usually. The thing is named Kepler, and it's a space telescope, as amply demonstrated and concluded in the previous RM discussion, above. Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  So just "per nom" and you're not even going to comment on nom's error that I pointed out? Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: Is it required ? If so please point me to that policy. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Of course it's not required – we're all volunteers here and can do as we please. But why make a comment that's so content free that it doesn't connect to the state of the conversation, when remarks that connect to policies, guidelines, and facts in evidence are what can be helpful in moving toward a decision? Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Well, it's effectively "required" in that proper closing procedure for any discussion like this looks at the rationales provided, and doesn't count heads. If a flaw in a rationale has been pointed out and there's no convincing rebuttal, then "per whoever" made that flawed reasoning = "per an argument I know is bad", i.e. it's some weird combination of WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ILIKEIT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  People are allowed to disagree. Consistency and recognisablility in conjunction with appropriate disambiguation are just as reasonable arguments as yours. I'd still argue that a commonly used name of a spacecraft ("Kepler Space Telescope"), used by numerous sources as cited above, should be used in preference to a descriptive disambiguation ("Kepler space telescope"). – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, we can disagree. But in your move proposal you present a false strawman about what the previous discussion relied on, and presented a criterion unrelated to what we find in our policies and guidelines. That's what I meant to indicate in opposing the proposal. A review of the previous RM discussion should help clarify things. The closing statement there summarizes the discussion content, and seems to still apply: Moved to Kepler space telescope. See general agreement below that this article should have disambiguation other than "(spacecraft)". The common name does appear to be "Kepler", so the "space telescope" works as natural disambiguation. There may come a time in the future when "Kepler Space Telescope" becomes the common name; however, that does not seem to be the case at present. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose and move the others to use lower-case, per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and, yes, WP:CONSISTENT. Nothing has changed since the last RM. The nom has falsified the original RM, which said nothing even remotely like "against the capitalisation of space telescope [because] it was only capitalised in title case". The actual argument, if you throw out that ridiculous straw man and actually read the prior RM, was that many claims of it being capitalized were failing to distinguish between mid-sentence use and use in title-case headlines (using Ngrams and other tools requires some competence in constructing proper searches and interpreting the results correctly, instead of cherry-picking or just falsifying the results). Meanwhile, there are various reliable sources not capitalizing in regular text. The MOS:CAPS standard is for WP to not capitalize things that are not capitalized consistently in reliable sources. Zero of that has changed, so this second RM is simply WP:FORUMSHOP, an attempt to see if a different crowd will show up and help WP:WIN for yet another case of WP:SSF over-capitalization. Just super-duper bogus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  All of these are about specific things aren't they so they are proper nouns MOS:POLITICALUNITS gives an example of city being a proper noun (like City of London and capitalized) and being a generic term (and not) if we're saying "space telescope" isn't part of the name (and therefore should be lower case) it should be in brackets namely Kepler (space telescope). Obviously there are cases where something is abbreviated in the sense that the capitalization is dropped (like the Beatles) but that's because its being abbreviated from The Beatles to the Beatles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• I can see the reasoning for lower-casing this page, but saying that Hubble Space Telescope and James Webb Space Telescope, well known proper names, should also be lower-cased is tossing out the baby with the bathwater, per this bathwater ngram. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per others and previous RM where the opposite was decided. This appears to be a misleading nomination and attempt to trick people into thinking it's capitalized everywhere, which is WP:NOTHERE behavior._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Zxcvbnm, as for seeing the nom as suggesting that the proposed styling is capitalized everywhere, please read the nomination again. The nominator seems to give a fair presentation, and uses clarifying words such as "some", "numerous", and "other miscellaneous reliable sources". Just sayin'. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree; nom was "fair" and well intentioned; but as I pointed out already he seems not to be aware of our correct criteria from MOS:CAPS, and he mischaracterized the previous RM results. So I can see why Zxcvbnm feels like there's trickery. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose The previous discussion decided against capitals, and that was not because it was only capitalized in titles. I opposed it then and now because it is not the common usage by people in the field. Astronomers and planetary scientists just call it "Kepler". Fcrary (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom and rejecting Dicklyon's rebuttal by applying WP:IAR to MOS:CAPS guidance favoring sentence case in our article TITLEs which never made sense to me. We are literally talking about what should be the TITLE for an article about this telescope. Yes, it's a space telescope named Kepler, but its full proper name is Kepler Space Telescope. Neither is wrong, but since the title case proper name is commonly used in reliable sources as abundantly proven by the nom, and we are talking about what the title should be here, I think we should use title case proper name for the title here, and MOS:CAPS should be revised accordingly. The current guidance there has created nothing but ridiculous conflicts like this one. --В²C ☎ 18:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  Did you not notice that NASA never caps it?. Why would we ignore all rules in this case? It doesn't really matter that you don't understand or appreciate the reasons why we use sentence case for titles; we should argue about that elsewhere if you don't like WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  w.r.t. others, see Spitzer Space Telescope, Hubble Space Telescope, James Webb Space Telescope. We'll leave those capped, in spite of what SMcCandlish says. I think NASA knows what they're doing here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: "Did you not notice that NASA never caps it?" – this is a complete falsehood in ignorance of the five NASA sources presented to editors in {{Reflist-talk}} which clearly show the capitalised name being used in prose writing in NASA-published articles on NASA websites. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I should have said NASA seldom caps it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support its a specific telescope not a class so its a proper noun. If "space telescope" aren't part of the name they should be in brackets namely Kepler (space telescope). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  I believe it's known as "natural disambiguation" when the parens aren't needed, but yes Kepler (space telescope) would be another possible title. Also, please note my comment immediately above that shows how entirely NASA disagrees with you about naming. Dicklyon (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to "space telescope" not being part of the actual name, we'd also need to make a large number of changes to other articles (e.g. the Discovery Program) since they all correctly call it Kepler. Fcrary (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Why not L4/L5 Lagrange points?

Why wasn't the telescope placed at Earth's L4 or L5 Lagrange points? I haven't investigated this, but that would seem to meet the objectives. Unless I'm way off the mark, perhaps someone could add such an explanation to the "Orbit and orientation" section. BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@BMJ-pdx Was this to save fuel and expense? As I vaguely remember, it was supposed to simply drift further away due to its orbit, and observations would be taken while it was at a suitable distance. So no need to spend fuel on decelerating it again relative to Earth once it was in position. I'm hazy about how far away the various Lagrange points are, but I've also a feeling they wanted it further away due to radio/infrared interference from the Earth. Musiconeologist (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC), edited 12:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)