This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Abdullah1099! In this edit, you added a footnote for a reference named "sn-20231130". Thing is, there's no such reference defined in this article so your addition results in an error. Are you able to provide the missing source so that the error can be fixed? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Mikeblas: Hi! Hope it's okay to jump in here, but after seeing a similar broken reference in another article, I'm fairly sure the article being referenced is this . It seems to make a general reference to the topic being mentioned (an Ariane 6 launch), but nothing about 2027 or the Optus satellite. I'm not sure if it would be prudent to remove the reference entirely, or add it with a note of some sort. Do you have any suggestions? NovaHyperion (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the reference should be added if it doesn't support the material in teh article. Instead, I think the material in the article should be removed if it isn't verifiable. I still haven't heard from Abdullah1099 about their intent with this edit. Maybe they have another source for the material they've added to the article. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I agree. Spotchecking a few of the other references, I'm concerned some of them do not provide adequate information to back up what is being claimed in the article, but it does seem that an additional reference has been added to the item mentioned above that does support more of the information. NovaHyperion (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
