Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Launch Systems and Vendors"
Jarogers2001 (talk | contribs) (Real and Paper) |
Jarogers2001 (talk | contribs) m (→Real and paper) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Cool. This might be a bit more useful if it were separated into historical, existing, and proposed-- it's not really fair to compare something that is launching today with something existing only on paper. --Geoff [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] 13:32, 12 January 2007 (PST) | Cool. This might be a bit more useful if it were separated into historical, existing, and proposed-- it's not really fair to compare something that is launching today with something existing only on paper. --Geoff [[User:Geoffrey.landis|Geoffrey.landis]] 13:32, 12 January 2007 (PST) | ||
---------------- | ---------------- | ||
| − | The "status" field is meant to denote that difference. The way I have the table set up, it is possible to color code the first cell in each row if necessary. However, there is a whole plethora of things that can go into that field. cancelled, discontinued, in use, suspended, proposed, under development, etc etc. Should we make a standard key to avoid confusion? [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 14:15, 12 January 2007 (PST) | + | The "status" field is meant to denote that difference. The way I have the table set up, it is possible to color code the first cell in each row if necessary. However, there is a whole plethora of things that can go into that field. cancelled, discontinued, in use, suspended, proposed, under development, etc etc. Should we make a standard key to avoid confusion about status? My only concern with coloring is that it is buggy and tends to look bad. [[User:Jarogers2001|Jarogers2001]] 14:15, 12 January 2007 (PST) |
Revision as of 15:19, 12 January 2007
ok, thanks for setting this up J. Charles F. Radley 15:42, 11 January 2007 (PST)
Any time :D -- Jarogers2001 15:44, 11 January 2007 (PST)
Real and paper
Cool. This might be a bit more useful if it were separated into historical, existing, and proposed-- it's not really fair to compare something that is launching today with something existing only on paper. --Geoff Geoffrey.landis 13:32, 12 January 2007 (PST)
The "status" field is meant to denote that difference. The way I have the table set up, it is possible to color code the first cell in each row if necessary. However, there is a whole plethora of things that can go into that field. cancelled, discontinued, in use, suspended, proposed, under development, etc etc. Should we make a standard key to avoid confusion about status? My only concern with coloring is that it is buggy and tends to look bad. Jarogers2001 14:15, 12 January 2007 (PST)
