Talk:Artemis II

should we remove the section "similar missions"? it is irrelevant to the subject of the article. CWikiedits1 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Keep. It gives the reader a richer understanding of the mission in context with the broader history of space flight, especially since each mission builds on knowledge gained from prior missions. It also helps provide a picture of the pattern that Apollo established and Artemis is following (albeit compressed). Build a new ship, test it without crew. Test it with crew in earth and lunar orbit. Then land it on the moon. Firefox0807 (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You mentioned Apollo 8 being similar to Artemis II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.163.254.133 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Not really. Apollo 10 was a "dress rehearsal" that included flying the LEM close to the lunar surface. Apollo 8, like this mission, did not bring a LEM. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

artemis III will be similar to apollo 9 as well, but artemis II is not similar to apollo 10, just apollo 8 ~2026-20428-94 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Artemis II is not a carbon copy of any prior mission but, if comparison were truly necessary, it is partially similar to Apollo 8 in flying to the moon without a lunar lander, but it is dissimilar to Apollo 8 because it does not orbit the moon.

Artemis II also partially resembles Apollo 13 by performing a so-called "slingshot manoeuvre" around the moon but, unlike Apollo 13, Artemis II has no lander.

But these comparisons are only partial, are therefore of little help, and risk sowing confusion. Spideog (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s true if you’re looking through the lens of the spacecraft’s orbit. However, it is much closer to Apollo 8 when you look through the lens of broader mission objectives: it is a crewed flight test beyond low Earth orbit of the command module without the lunar lander. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

What one compares it to relies on the point of view taken of the mission. It can be analysed from so many dimensions to produce any desired result as to render the exercise meaningless. I see no point in comparison here. How does shoehorning-in arbitrary waffle about Apollos 8, 10, or 13 improve understanding of the mission? The thing is sui generis. Spideog (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think comparisons between missions are a bit arbitrary, you could argue almost any apollo mission similar to the Artemis II mission as long as it was a no lander like 8, however It would be helpful to include these missions as contextual not as a comparison. Ilovedimsum (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  was initially intended to support the now-canceled [[Asteroid Redirect Mission]]

  +

  was intended to explore an asteroid redirected to [[lunar orbit]] by the [[Asteroid Redirect Mission]]

• Why it should be changed: EM-2 was not a redirect mission or a support mission, but an exploration mission. The redirect was to be done by a separate mission, EM-2 was to explore the redirected asteroid, per the first paragraph of the body.

~2025-42618-02 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. GearsDatapack (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe there should be a whole section dedicated to the concerns about Orion's heat shield, though I am in no way qualified or bold enough to do it myself. Disnewuisux (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I'm not sure I love it, and I think it could use more sources beyond the Berger article, but it's a start. Feel free to jump in and change it up. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey this is great! Thanks so much! I'll see if I can contribute to it whenever I can. Disnewuisux (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It's just confusing, that's all. Had to google it. They're not going to the Moon, they're going around it". ~2026-59924-3 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair point. Changed. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix the reference to link to the existing citation. It looks like it was accidentally broken during this edit.

Matshch (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done –CopperyMarrow15 (talk • edits) 21:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In second intro paragraph: "and Hansen the first non-US-American to leave low Earth orbit..." as Hansen is Canadian, and therefore American. Y99dr451l (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done, but did readjust wording slightly for clarity. Kieraaaa (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

he isn't American.

He's North American. ~2026-21141-73 (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Would it not be fair to say he is both American and North America? Correct me if I am wrong as I am from Europe, but my definition of American would be anyone who lives or is from the North or South of American, the same way I would call an Eastern European a European? Kieraaaa (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not how "American" is commonly used, regardless of whether it's technically correct. Regardless, it's a moot point as it's already been changed to "first non-U.S. citizen." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

In English, "America" and "American" refer to the US only. Other languages have different scopes for their cognates of those two words. Calling a Canadian an American is a good way to start a fight. Canadians have always - since at least 1812 - rejected the notion of being "American". Indefatigable (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this and think this definition is nonsensical - to be a North American you have to also be American - but in the interest of not starting a fight and as it is already different as noted by the other editor, I will acquiesce. Kieraaaa (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Kieraaaa, This has basically resulted from slang, shortening the "United States of America" to "America" or American, and not assuming everyone else who lives in America outside the USA is not American. They may not live in the USA but Canada and Mexico are still in North America and hence they live in or are from America (the continent of). It's been cleared up in the text anyway. Avi8tor (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

"person of color" is not correct. Please correct :) ~2026-16776-81 (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The flyby distance at the beginning of the article is stated as being 6,400 miles above the surface while the article cited for the section says "4,700 miles beyond the far side of the Moon". Later on in the wiki it even says "closest approach of approximately 4,047 miles (6,513 km) from the far-side lunar surface". Additionally, rewording it to say something like "above the lunar surface" might also add some clarity for readers but that's not really all that important. Drew.Levy (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Changed to "4,700 miles beyond the Moon" as the article states. GN22 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

IMO the blue links in the caption to "Animation of Artemis II" are structured in a way that makes it very hard to read. Currently, the links fragment the text up to read like "Earth centered inertial | reference frame" and "Earth-centered | frame rotating | with Moon", which is very unnatural and requires multiple passes to understand. If anything it should be "earth centered inertial reference frame" (it's all one phrase) and "Earth-centered frame | rotating with Moon".

Does anyone know if there is a guideline page for adding blue links without preventing readability? I don't know how to fix it easily here. Maybe the second link could just highlight "rotating", that could help. And perhaps the first could just highlight earth-centered or inertial, but not both? BennBluee (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree and don't think we should make any changes to them. I believe they are fine as is. Hyperlinks are used like this across Wikipedia. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Is NASA's official broadcast enough to prove the mission has already launched? Do we need to wait until, say, NYT publishes an article saying "Artemis II mission launched"? It's getting pretty close and I don't know when we should edit it. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

NASA's official broadcast is enough, just because it is a primary source doesn't mean that it happened, and also millions of people tune into NASA's official broadcast anyways. shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be keeping my hand on the edit button! VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That's just my personal opinion but we should wait for consensus shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, consensus by editing should work; I already edited it but won't press save until after the launch. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 17:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Consensus that the rocket a million people just saw launch actually launched? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Rocket has launched at 6:36 pm (EDT). TheWikiPerson14 (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Awesome ConflictFan (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Got a source for that? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

CNN TheWikiPerson14 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we need more than that, luckily other editors are already on top of it. In the future, we need a specific source to cite for any additions (like a link to the new article, etc.) so that it can be verified. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

heres the source NASA on youtube and NASA on nasas website. Nasa is the one doing the mission so linking to a nasa article saying it launched should be enough

L to anyone who doesnt know it launched ~2026-21080-72 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Section: Mission Overview / Trajectory Suggested Edit: Add specific details regarding the Orion spacecraft's altitude and location in deep space post-trans-lunar injection.

Following the successful Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) burn, the Artemis II mission moves beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and past the exosphere into deep space. Verifiable flight data confirms the Orion spacecraft travels well beyond the Van Allen belts and at a distance of approximately 4,700 miles beyond the far side of the Moon, making it the first crewed mission to reach this altitude since 1972 Healthy-Good Being (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Would the NASA Mission Blog be a reliable source? Healthy-Good Being (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Technically, that would be a primary self-published source. But, being NASA themselves, it might slide for a short period until something better can be found. A third-party independent source would be a lot better, did space.com or one of the science journals/magazines, etc. maybe write about it? Can you provide a link to the blog post that you are quoting? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to change the current picture at the top of the article to a photo of the rocket launching ~2026-11171-06 (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a photo for us to use, that we are allowed to use? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That would be a great update, but we have to be careful about the 'credibility and all' regarding copyrights. Do you have a photo that we are allowed to use? It needs to be freely licensed (not just 'free to view' on a website), otherwise it will be deleted immediately. If it’s your own photo, you can license it here.In addition to the photo, is it time to update the mission status in the infobox? Given (Source: NASA Mission Blog), it seems the current 'Active' status is outdated. Does anyone have a reliable source to confirm the new status so we can keep the article accurate. Healthy-Good Being (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we need to update that. It is around an hour since launch, but the article doesn't have much other than the launch time in the section about the mission itself. While looking for the time they planned to launch so that I knew when to start watching the live stream on YouTube, I stumbled upon the live updates article on the NASA website. When I have more time, should I find it and post the link here? Lemur3215 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The article says the mission has been going on for 21 hours and 43 minutes as of 22:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC). That can't be right as they took off nearly 24 hours ago exactly. I think someone messed up the time by three hours. -- Veggies (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It's setup correctly. However, templates like these can be wonky if the data is cached by your browser. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ADD:

NASA has provided a live view from the Orion spacecraft via: YouTube which documents Microsoft Outlook problems onboard the Orion spacecraft.

REFERENCES:

'I have two Microsoft Outlooks, and neither one of those are working' via: bsky.app

Microsoft's many Outlooks are confusing users – including its own employees via: theregister.com 2025/03/25

from: Artemis II astronaut: 'I have two Microsoft Outlooks, and neither one of those are working' via: theregister.com 2026/04/02

~2026-20424-24 (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

bsky.app is not a reliable source. The link is only a clip from the stream. The first Register link has nothing to do with the mission. The second Register link is fine, but we now have only one source. It's not something that's important to the mission. If it turns out to be a major issue, we can revisit this. byteflush _Talk 00:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above response. Day Creature (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change :

[[File:Artemis 2 boarding pass.jpg|thumb|Souvenir boarding pass bearing a name which will fly around the Moon on the Artemis II mission]]

to:

[[File:Artemis 2 boarding pass.jpg|thumb|[[User:Spideog]]{{'}}s souvenir boarding pass bearing the name '''Spideog Wikipedia''' which will fly around the Moon on the Artemis II mission]]

~2026-20424-24 (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. User pages are not linked to the article space. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 02:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

As of this, the NASA live feed just revealed a new Blue Marble photo from Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman. Quote to add:

"In this single frame, it wasn't Earth that they just captured. It was a reminder that no matter how far we go, we are still one world watching, hoping, and reaching higher."

Source of the quote was the PAO. It was read around 9:45am EDT (1345 UTC). ----Poomfang ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 13:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Please discuss here for any addition of pictures or replacement of pictures Dhanvanthatprince2 (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Should we add the photographs of Earth the astronauts took that NASA posted on Twitter? (https://x.com/NASA/status/2040059740848283920 and https://x.com/NASA/status/2040059770237849635). It's pretty historically important, being the first human-made photo of Earth from space in decades iirc. How would the copyright for that work? Corbasm2 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind. It got posted. My bad! Corbasm2 (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The article might be improved by inclusion of a {{Gallery}}. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 19:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Sdsds yea man I think tht would be cool wanna do it together cuz I am too lazy to do it alone lol Dhanvanthatprince2 (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Once they are safely removed from Orion, the capsule will be towed b

This doesn't make sense - "the capsule" is not "they". Perhaps this was intended to refer to the crew. Suggest "Once the crew is safely removed..."~2026-87016-6 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Even with Artemis II only being in space for 3 4 days, the launch picture has already been replaced like 4 times. Commons already has over 150 images of the Artemis II launch, so what's with the dispute? - SimpleObjects-9ei 🌸/🌻/🌞 16:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Now, do we need a listing of all wakeup calls, or is this thing irrelevant. I get that we need to include information, but REALLY? Wakeup calls? Lemurik the Historian (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is that this is not important nor is the mascot nor is the fake boarding pass. All that should be deleted from the article. Countercheck (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources deem it noteworthy, we do too. - ZLEA ^TǀC 22:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not how noteworthiness is calibrated. Even reputable media include shallow trivia as mere crowdpleasers. This is an encyclopaedia. Spideog (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

If you have a legitimate reason to call this information "trivia" despite it having significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, please feel free to provide it. As has already been pointed out multiple times, wake-up calls are included in almost every crewed mission article. Likewise, zero-G indicators are also almost always covered for missions that had them. If you want to argue that they are mere trivia, then I suggest starting a discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

wake-up calls are included in almost every crewed mission article. Can confirm that, see several Space Shuttle mission articles. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The wakeup calls are used on almost every crewed space flight page, including the Apollo missions. They have become part of the lore of every major mission. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Wake-up calls are such mindless trivia. Calling them "lore" attaches a phony dignity to them. Just because some journalists mention them does not make them worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia (different standards) and, of course, just because they exist in other articles does not count as justification according to the Wikipedia rule WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. The ridiculous stuffed toys, the so-called "gravity indicators", are childish nonsense. They are not instruments or sensors, just lowest common denominator, infantile public relations, and would not appear in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example. They are, literally, pure fluff. Toss all this junk. Spideog (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I think they should be included in the article but not with standalone sections dedicated to them Maxbeirut (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

My point is not that the wakeup calls and stuffed toy don't deserve their own section, I'm saying that they don't belong in the article at all. Spideog (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This article is about the mission as a whole, not just the technical side of it. I'm unsure about the wakeup calls, but the zero gravity indicator and SD card of names are a significant part of the mission's publicity and the public's interaction with this mission, so I think they shouldn't be disregarded. To me they're in a similar category as "X million people watched football match Y". ~2026-21248-85 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Spideog Why do you think that the boarding pass and SD card of those names is worthy of inclusion, but the zero gravity indicator is not? That seems like a very blurry line in what’s notable and not … especially when you consider that the SD card was placed inside the zero gravity indicator: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/14995 RickyCourtney (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a guideline (not a rule) for deletion discussions, not content disputes. The relevant guideline (not rule) would be WP:OTHERCONTENT. I want to point out this part: While relying on comparisons to other articles is generally unconvincing, articles that have been through some form of quality review—such as featured articles, good articles, or articles that have achieved a WikiProject A-class rating—are often the way they are for good reasons informed by site policy. If such articles have remained current with policy since their promotion, they are often more compelling examples to illustrate arguments. Looking at Category:FA-Class spaceflight articles and Category:GA-Class spaceflight articles, only two articles with a dedicated wake-up songs (STS-8 and STS-125) are on either list. The Apollo missions, all FA-Class articles, don't include wake-up songs in a dedicated section. Therefore, I oppose including the wake-up songs as a standalone list, but would support their inclusion in prose or in a footnote.

ESB5415 19:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

OSE is generally for AFD, less so article content. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

A good point, although I believe wake up songs were not really a thing during Apollo, or at least not a thing as much emphasized in news reports as now. It was more a thing in the shuttle era, and the two STS pages you mention are the only STS pages on the FA list. Still: The presence of wake up songs sections in many STS articles is not a persuasive argument for putting one here. The better viewpoint is to ask whether such a section well serves the purposes of Wikipedia. Given the very ephemeral importance of the wake up songs (has anyone really cared what they woke up to on STS-125 since the end of that mission?), dedicating a section to them seems inappropriate. Doctroid (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

In fact we could do the same to these sections for the STS articles as we did here, namely to delete these sections and place the songs into a footnote Maxbeirut (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You’re just a miserable person aren’t you? Good lord what’s wrong with a little fun there’s literal joke pages on Wikipedia itself and wake up calls have been included in dozens of pages about missions. ~2026-21828-11 (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted Doctroid's April 9 edit removing the section on wake-up calls and all of the information therein. It is indeed the existing standard on space shuttle STS missions to include wake-up calls in their own separate section. Should that be the case? If so, should we treat Artemis with the same standard? There is no consensus here. Let's have a discussion and find one.

I will also note, @Doctroid, that it appears your edit summary was misleading or erroneous. You stated, "Revert; per talk page discussion, wake up songs should be in article but not as its own section." However, it seems you deleted all the information and did not place the information in another section. I can see from your comments that you are acting in good faith. Did I miss something?

Finally, to the IP addresses levying personal attacks--Doctroid is right, let's keep this kind or at least polite. We can argue about ideas but not each other's persons. Firefox0807 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

The information was and is there; someone in an earlier edit put it in a note (Note 'a'). We can argue over whether that is the best place for it, but your insistence on featuring it as a separate section in the face of the fact there is no consensus over whether it should be there at all is destructive. "Because it's been done before" is not good enough reason; should it be done? Doctroid (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I think its notable enough for some inclusion as there is some significance to it vis a vis prior missions, especially being modern hits. But perhaps it would be better as prose: ..."Sleepyhead" by Young & Sick (Passion Pit cover), "Green Light" by John Legend featuring André 3000, "In a Daydream" by Freddy Jones Band, "Pink Pony Club" by Chappell Roan, "Working Class Heroes (Work)" by CeeLo Green with a speech by Charlie Duke, "Good Morning" by Mandisa featuring TobyMac and a speech by Jim Lovell...← Metallurgist (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been digging and trying to find sources of WHY they're such a big deal. I was the one that refined the section a bit by mentioning that they boost morale and keep good rhythm of the crew, and didn't notice the discussion here. I think they're worthy of inclusion because it mixes pop culture with science, something not often done. There was quite a bit of hub bub about Chappell Roan's Pink Pony Club and I think the speeches by Jim Lovell and Charlie Duke are definitely worthy of mention somewhere. Jguy _Talk^Done 15:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll just also add that wakeup calls were definitely a "thing" during the Shuttle era (nearly every mission page has a table of the wakeup song), but they disappeared during the Station era, when we now had astronauts in space 365 days a year... sometimes not working the same shifts. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I've just made an edit solving this issue. Hope it's fine. Maxbeirut (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

A+. I added 'posthumous' to Jim Lovell, otherwise I like. Jguy _Talk^Done 16:20, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Good point, I had that on my mind, but couldnt get it out. Anyway, looks like weve solved it with a footnote. ← Metallurgist (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

My reading of this discussion is that some people think the wake up calls should have their own section, some think they should not be in the article at all; a reasonable compromise is to list them, but not to make a separate section for them. Let's keep it at that. Doctroid (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

The wake-up call section is standard, it has been standard for years, but apparently it's gotta go now because a couple of killjoys think they're unencyclopedic? ~2026-12847-33 (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Standard for what? Two shuttle mission articles? We should do the same in those as we did here Maxbeirut (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Every single STS mission has a Wake-up Call section that lists each song that was played for the duration of the mission. Just because your subjective opinion is that this information is not important does not make it so. ~2026-22097-74 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s not how Wikipedia works, see WP:PG. Thanks. ~2026-22175-23 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"Standard for years" isn't the same thing as "good". Standards generally are standards only until people decide there's a better way to do things. Then they create a new standard.

Again, the question is not what has been done in other articles, but what should be done in this article that best serves the purpose of Wikipedia. Leaving the information in, but not making it a dedicated section, seems the best resolution in view of conflicting opinions.

Anyway, insulting the people you disagree with is not constructive. Doctroid (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

True, but if editors want to change an existing standard, then we need to seek consensus first. There is no consensus here, so if there is an existing standard then it must be followed. Firefox0807 (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Well then, seek consensus; don't just turn it into a revert war. I make a specific proposal: Leave the wake up call information in, but do not make it a separate headlined section. Until your recent revert it was (and for that matter still is, redundantly) a footnote. I propose putting it back into the body of the article as prose, since the footnote is evidently too obscure. Is there anyone who cannot support this compromise? Doctroid (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Following the convention of Apollo 8, Apollo 9 and so on. Additionally I propose using the reoriented version for familiarity's sake (it's also more striking).

Maxbeirut (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Maxbeirut yea it looks wonderful but the problem is that this wiki article refers to Artemis ll which means it either should have a picture of the crew or the picture of the rocket so it won't fit well in here

nice picture tho^⁠_⁠^ Dhanvanthatprince2 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

And the Apollo 8 article refers to Apollo 8. I fail to grasp your logic frankly Maxbeirut (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2026

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

INFOBOX image = Artemis II Launch (NHQ20260401 admin 0025).jpg

image_caption = Artemis II lifts off from Launch Complex 39B at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on April 1, 2026

to

image = Earth From the Perspective of Artemis II (upside down).jpg

image_caption = Hello, World
Taken by Reid Wiseman of Artemis II; the first picture taken by humans of the whole Earth since 1972 and the first picture with Earth and Venus in a single view (reoriented)

Following the convention of Apollo 8, Apollo 9 and so on. Additionally I propose using the reoriented version for familiarity's sake (it's also more striking).

Maxbeirut (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

umm, what? The moon isn't in the image at all so what are you talking about?~2026-87016-6 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I checked NASA's caption and they say it's Venus. But in Space Engine (I know, I know, it's not RS) the moon aligned with that bright spot. But OK, I've corrected that now Maxbeirut (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure that the proposed change fits MOS:LEADIMAGE, its not clear to me that the proposed image will help readers identify that they are on the correct page. I see your point about Apollo 8. I won't archive the request yet in case other editors think differently. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This image has received its very own title akin to Earthrise and now has received a dedicated Wiki article, and has become the most famous photograph from the mission so far, circling 'round the globe (figuratively). It's not clear to me how the CURRENT image helps readers identify that they are on the correct page? You can also check out Artemis I, its infobox pic doesn't depict the launch either. Maxbeirut (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that a good infobox image should not need a caption for readers to understand how it relates to the article's topic. To clarify, I'm not saying that we shouldn't use captions, but the lead image is usually the first thing readers see when opening an article. Therefore, the best infobox images are those that a reader with minimal understanding of the topic is able to look at and immediately gain a basic understanding of what the article is about before reading a single word. A photo of Earth does absolutely nothing to inform the reader of the topic, whereas the current image at least makes it clear that this was a mission involving a large rocket. It's not perfect, but it's probably the best we have at this time. You can also check out Artemis I, its infobox pic doesn't depict the launch either. That article uses an image of the spacecraft approaching the moon, which I believe is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Should a similar image be taken during this mission, or perhaps another photo of Earth that at least shows part of the moon (similar to the Earthrise photo in the Apollo 8 article), then I would support using it in the infobox. - ZLEA ^TǀC 04:35, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I based the caption on the caption for Earthrise in the Apollo 8 article Maxbeirut (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

By the way, in an unrelated discussion above in this Talk section, the similarity of this mission to Apollo 8 has already been noted, particularly as pertains to the mission plans. I will note another similarity myself, namely that in both missions, humans photographed the whole Earth for the first time of some kind. Maxbeirut (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I will note another similarity myself, namely that in both missions, humans photographed the whole Earth for the first time of some kind. But that wasn't the goal of the mission. The goal of both Apollo 8 and Artemis II is a lunar flyby, which the Hello, World image does absolutely nothing to convey to the reader and arguably distracts from. The Earthrise photo was obviously taken from beyond the moon, so the goal of the mission is still reasonably apparent just going off of the image. As of right now, I contend that the launch photo is still the best image we have to represent the topic of the article. - ZLEA ^TǀC 14:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Based on notability alone, the Hello World photograph is what people associate with the Artemis II mission, while nobody knows (except for readers of the Artemis II article on Wikipedia) that photograph of its launch even exists. Food for thought. Maxbeirut (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Based on notability alone, the Hello World photograph is what people associate with the Artemis II mission If you are aware of any policy or guideline that specifies "notability" of an image as a factor in determining the lead image of an article, please feel free to provide it. Otherwise, my point still stands. Food for thought, I guess. - ZLEA ^TǀC 00:20, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I thought notability was your (or perhaps the user ScrubbedFalcon's) whole argument. I turned around that argument in the photograph's favor Maxbeirut (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No, my argument is that a good lead image is one that gives the reader a basic understanding of the article's subject before reading even a single word. This article isn't about Earth or the Hello, World photo, but rather the lunar exploration mission where it happened to be taken. The image gives the reader no context as to what "Artemis II" is, whereas the launch image at least makes it clear that it is some sort of mission involving a large rocket. The reason why Moonrise works for Apollo 8 while Hello, World does not for this article is that the former was clearly taken beyond the moon, which makes it clear that Apollo 8 was a lunar flyby. As beautiful as it is, Hello, World is just another image of Earth that, for all the reader knows, could have been taken on any crewed or uncrewed deep space mission. It conveys no further useful context as to the article's subject. - ZLEA ^TǀC 01:14, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Not quite. It's clearly taken from beyond LEO. Which we had not ventured to for over half a century! Maxbeirut (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Uncrewed missions have flown beyond LEO and have taken similar images. Regardless, the argument is moot now that we have Earthset, which is leagues better at providing context for the reader than Hello, World. I suggest that this discussion be closed. - ZLEA ^TǀC 15:03, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm alright with any such picture from space replacing that generic launch pic! Maxbeirut (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

@Maxbeirut guys earthset is the best picture even NASA uses tht Dhanvanthatprince2 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes I'm in agreement Maxbeirut (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Disabled the edit request template. Please reenable only when there's a clear consensus for a change. —⁠andrybak (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

I’d like to engage in a discussion about the flags in the spaceflight crew template. Here are my issues with them:

• MOS:FLAG says that flags should be accompanied by country names. They are not.
• MOS:FLAGCRUFT says that flags should not be used to emphasize nationality without good reason.
• Nowhere in the instructions for Template:Spaceflight crew does it say that flags should be used within the template.

Some editors like @TJauteur have been using the Space Force flag, which feels exceptionally inappropriate as this is a civil mission, not a military one. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete the flags; they violate the MOS:FLAGCRUFT policy. Spideog (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Citing directly from MOS:FLAG

"Situations where flag icons may be used in infoboxes include:

1. Summarising military conflicts
2. Representing the sporting nationality of participants in sporting events where this practice is otherwise common, such as at the FIFA World Cup or Olympic Games
3. Representing the registry of ships, as well as use of International Code of Signals flags

"

1. The space race is technically a form of military agenda (if not a full-out conflict).
2. It can also be classified as a sporting event. (Space Race)
3. It is very much a flying vessel that is registered by organisations like NASA.

By ignoring these facts and focusing on the type of flag used you are intentionally creating a misleading argument. Whilst I agree, the space force flag is not the most appropriate flag in this case, the flag of the registrar of the ships or the astronauts' training station is highly relevant in a (especially in a multinational space effort). Most (if not all) astronauts are members of their country's Navy or Air Force, not recognising the military aspect ignores the underlying messaging in the space missions. TJauteur (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Nothing you've said above supports using the flags. A NASA mission is not a military conflict, and to even suggest such as thing is absolutely ludicrous. It's not a sporting event (no international competition in space is not a sporting event, again see the ludicrous comment.) And it's not a ship flying a country of registry, spacecraft don't work that way. And finally you're edit warring, the onus and burden is on the person adding content to get consensus for the inclusion and if its removed to not add it again until such consensus can be achieved. Canterbury Tail talk 02:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It is patently absurd to describe the mission as a military conflict or as a sporting event. Please don't waste time with this utter nonsense. Spideog (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.space.gov.au/register-of-space-objects

A spacecraft absolutely needs to be registered.

Maybe stop twisting my words and you'll (maybe) see or realise what I was saying. TJauteur (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@TJauteur on that note and per WP:BRD, I ask you to self-revert and remove the flags from the page (the long standing stable state of the page) until we establish a consensus for the change. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You do realise that adding unnecessary parallels doesn't contribute to the discussion at all. With every reply you're adding unwarranted claims and once corrected, rather than addressing it you diverge off into another tangent.

The space race still has military ties (I never said it was a conflict). The Commander-in-Chief of the Space Force has labelled it as 'Space Race 2.0' which links the military and the reignited figurative sportive race to the moon. And every mission is done on a registered vessel. TJauteur (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Canterbury Tail who had insightful comments the last time this came up… RickyCourtney (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the national flags. The main reason of note would be to show that the first non-American, a Canadian, is going around the Moon. That seems a good reason, asked for in MOS:FLAGCRUFT, as well as useful encyclopedic knowledge shown quickly to readers by presenting recognizable flags. As for having to write the countries name next to the flag, not in this type of chart. The flag speaks for itself, no need to dumb it down. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You cannot assume people know the flags, that is the reason for MOS:FLAG's statement on having to have the country name except in limited situations, none of which apply here. The US flag you'd think people know, but in the extremely small size is easily mistaken also for Liberia and Malaysia (I know it's unlikely but its still the point.) Canterbury Tail talk 02:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That's arguably using a guideline too literally for this situation, taking into account the limited space in the chart/template. Most English speaking people will recognize Canada's flag, and distinguish it from others. Removing the flags doesn't seem an improvement, and in this instance maintaining them communicates the national-diversity well. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The flags achieve nothing, they're just decorative cruft (in fact 90% of the usage of these illegible ridiculously small flags throughout Wikipedia are pointless, but that's a different thing) and are an accessibility issue. You're putting in information that some readers cannot perceive and utilise, which is why using images as the sole means of communication is bad. Additionally the field they're being shoehorned into is for a person's name. Not an nationality. Not what flag they wear on their sleeve. A name. Last I checked a flag wasn't a person's name.

As for the "national diversity" this has already been covered in the article, repeating it again in a non-accessible form isn't necessary. We shouldn't be repeating the info as is normal. Canterbury Tail talk 03:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

All of what you said is just your personal opinion. Most people find the flags helpful. TJauteur (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

On Monobook at 100% the flags are clearly legible and identifiable, not illegible. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You both call the flags "the sole means of communication" and complain about redundancy. What is it? "Not every visitor can use this" is not a reason to remove something, otherwise you would have to remove every single image on Wikipedia. The flags let almost all readers quickly understand what's going on, and everyone else can still get the same information from the text. That type of redundancy is good. It's the equivalent of an article lead which quickly summarizes the rest of the article. No one complains about redundancy there either. --mfb (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG is very clear on this: flags should be accompanied by country names.

So flags can not be the sole means of communication, but following the MOS means that we need to have both the flag and the country name, which is redundant. That’s even before we get into the very valid discussion if identifying their country of origin is even necessary in a small template. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It's more of a guide than a hard rule. Nevertheless, it does allow room for exceptions especially when the option without country names makes the table more readable like in the case of a sport statistics. This is very much the case here, as adding countries' names would make the table slightly verbose. TJauteur (talk) 03:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Then gain consensus for changing the MOS guidelines. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion relevant to this article. TJauteur (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

You are shoehorning flags into a field intended for people's names. You're the one adding your personal opinion, the others are presenting the MOS and standard operating for Wikipedia. A) flags should be accompanied by names and B) flags most definitely do not belong in a field for a person's name. Canterbury Tail talk 04:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Most people find it helpful (and that's not an opinion). The problem stems from your premise that the MOS is a strict codified rulebook whereas in reality it serves merely as a guide. So it's not 'flags should be accompanied by names' but rather, 'flags should be accompanied by names where reasonable/convenient)'. When you make claims like 'flags most definitely do not belong in a field for a person's name', you're both offering your personal opinion and also changing the root of the argument at the same time. The argument is not whether a flag belongs in that particular field but rather, 'does it belong in the info-box at all?', the name column just happens to be the most convenient place to put it for the time being. So please stick to the topic before diverting attention to other things that you deem are more necessary. TJauteur (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It's all part of the same conversation, both MOS:FLAG and the shoehorning apply here, and you are the one that has to get consensus for an inclusion and not edit war over it (as you seem to be edit warring on many articles.) Oh and please provide a reference for "most people fine it helpful." Canterbury Tail talk 04:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I think @Randy Kryn explained it fairly well, there's no need for me to regurgitate it. TJauteur (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Great, so you'll be reverting your edit warring edits (that you've been blocked for before) and returning the article to how it was prior due to your inability to establish a consensus for your edits. Fabulous news. Canterbury Tail talk 04:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

That’s not really a response to the content discussion. If there’s a reason the flags shouldn’t be included beyond repeating MOS:FLAG at face value, I’m happy to engage with it. TJauteur (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The MOS is the guidelines we, as editors, are expected to work within. You can’t just wave it away saying that you won’t engage if we’re repeating the guidelines. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:17, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It's even marked in bold: Wikipedia:Manual of Style extended FAQ#Why does MoS exist, and do I have to follow it?

The Manual of Style exists primarily to ensure a consistent reading experience for our audience, and secondarily to prevent and resolve recurrent disputes over style matters. It is an internal guideline for Wikipedia editing only. It is not a mandatory policy that editors must assiduously follow. It is not part of the encyclopaedia content, nor intended as a general-public reference work about how to write English for all purposes. It is primarily used as a blueprint for routine cleanup work across articles, as a dispute-resolution mechanism, and by many editors as a quick reference ("cheat sheet") guide while they are writing here (especially if they are deeply steeped in some other style guide, such as that of a particular organisation or field). TJauteur (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The consensus is against you, and following consensus *is* something one must generally follow. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

No consensus has formed. To best maintain that one section of this page that includes flags as an exception to the strict and questionable "no flags without words as well" understanding of the regs that some editors have, WP:IAR as policy to improve and maintain overrides the guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules can justify bold edits, but once those edits are challenged and reverted, the process turns to discussion and consensus. Here, no consensus has emerged, as no compelling rationale has been presented for invoking that principle. What do these small flags add that cannot be conveyed more clearly in prose or through existing agency abbreviations? In the absence of consensus, the appropriate course is to retain the prior stable version without flags. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

MoS has been cited a lot but that doesn't really answer whether removing the flags improves the template. At the moment, the assumption seems to be that less visual information is inherently better which isn't obvious, especially for something designed to be scanned quickly. If there's any clear benefit to the reader from removing them, it would be useful to see that explained. Also, suggesting 'just put it in prose or abbreviations' misses the point of having an info-box in the first place. An info-box is meant to be quickly scannable and flags are a compact visual aid that serve that role. TJauteur (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This conversation isn't about removing them. This conversation is about adding them. It's all about you trying to obtain consensus to add the flags. That is the consensus that you're trying to build. We're not trying to build consensus to remove them, you're trying to build consensus to add them and show that they add value. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Your argument cuts both ways: flags aren’t inherently effective for scannability. We can’t assume readers will recognize them, and at the small sizes used in tables even widely recognized flags can be unclear or confused. Agency abbreviations (which are already present) are unambiguous and prose allows us to fully explain the significance of nationalities. The issue isn’t that less visual information is automatically better, but that any added element should provide a clear encyclopedic benefit, and that hasn’t been established here. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I propose a compromise here:

You're saying the flags are not necessarily recognisable, I'm saying it helps readers like me scan through a table.

How about you keep the flag with the link to the country's wiki page, any use unfamiliar with those flags can simply hover over the text to familiarise themselves with the flag.

As for the added benefit, the abbreviation 'CSA' is very unambiguous, as to an uninformed reader it could very much mean the 'Chinese Space Agency, adding the Canadian flag helps readers quickly decipher the abbreviation without stopping and reading more into 'CSA'. TJauteur (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

As long as its defined earlier in the article on first use, its fine to use the acronym here per MOS:ACRO. Canterbury Tail talk 16:09, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I never said it's not fine to use those acronyms, can you please for once stick to the discussion about flags.

The flags are an aid without the reader having to scroll up or click on links to figure out what the acronym means. TJauteur (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a magic wand. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The nationality of the Canadian is clearly asserted multiple times in the article so the flag is a redundant decoration that violates policy. Spideog (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - I agree with the arguments above that the flags are redundant, inappropriate, and a violation of MOS:FLAGCRUFT. This isn't a sporting event, so there is no reason to emphasize the astronauts' nationality in the crew template. Their nationalities are well covered in the article text and the flags aren't even used appropriately (per MOS:FLAG). This is textbook flagcruft. Nosferattus (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The template is basically a plaintext table. Its use feels really futile considering it has many limitations and is not flexible at all. I would argue this applies to most space missions' wiki articles. Furthermore, any additions are simply impossible as they require modifying the template itself. My argument is to switch back to normal wikitables. TJauteur (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Infoboxes exist to bring consistency across articles of similar topics. The limitations and lack of flexibility isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. If you believe that a necessary parameter is missing, propose it at Template talk:Infobox spaceflight, explain your reasoning, and gain consensus… then it can be added. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah no, I agree with you, these articles need to be consistent, but for information purposes I would have preferred something like Template:Infobox spaceflight than the current solution as it provides far more detail (which is the goal of any encyclopaedia), than a simple 2 column table. TJauteur (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused by this discussion. TJauteur started with Unnecessary use of the spaceflight info-box template but then says I would have preferred something like Template:Infobox spaceflight than the current solution. This seems like a contradiction.

The "current solution" (intentionally overexplaining to make sure we're on the same page) is: as of Special:Permalink/1347409361 the sixth line of wikitext is {{Infobox spaceflight. Template:Infobox spaceflight has been used by the article since 2013 (Special:Diff/588125575).

Is the usage of Template:Infobox spaceflight something unnecessary or something you'd prefer? —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction, it's a suggestion for an improvement, I don't believe that the crew info-box adds any meaningful information that the spaceflight info-box cannot add. TJauteur (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you perhaps talking about some other template? Template:Spaceflight crew perhaps? Infobox has a specific meaning on English Wikipedia. Not every "box" showing some information is an "infobox" here. —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Right, I think TJauteur is confusing Template:Spaceflight crew with an infobox. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think you're right, I've used the term info-box in lieu of the crew table.

Just to be clear, I don't believe the crew table adds much value to the article (if any) as most of it has already been discussed in the info-box, and regurgitation information doesn't necessarily add value. TJauteur (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The NASA targeting plan app has a nice image of what the astronauts will be observing during lunar flyby. Bri.public (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are they linked instead of displayed? Is it the NASA restrictions? ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed RickyCourtney (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Giving every measurement in miles, kilometers, and nautical miles is both unnecessary and confusing. Yes, nautical miles are sometimes used for space navigation, but specifically in the context of Earth orbit since Earth nautical miles are based on the latitudinal degrees at the equator. The moon has its own nautical miles for orbital navigation relative to the moon. Every planet's polar circumference is 21,600 nautical miles (60 minutes x 360 degrees). So when this article says "Orion flew around the Moon at a closest approach of about 4,067 miles (6,545 km; 3,534 nmi)" is it talking about Earth nautical miles or lunar nautical miles? For a spacecraft that is going around both the Earth and the moon it just doesn't make sense to use nautical miles. And besides, it's just annoying having 3 different units for every measurement. Ideally we would just be using kilometers, but I can understand including miles. Adding nautical miles is just overkill. Nosferattus (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, I find that weird and confusing and came here to see if anyone has already raised the issue. Edit: Though, just to be clear, the 21600 nmi circumference is a historical thing. Nautical mile is now defined as exactly 1852 meters. byteflush _Talk 00:57, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Just use 'miles'. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

If we're going to have this discussion, it really needs to happen at a broader level. All of the Apollo mission articles (and most are Featured Articles) make extensive use of nautical miles, often as a primary unit. Some of the sources for this mission do as well. Nautical miles remain a standard unit in aeronautics. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Then it misleads a lot of readers like me, who have no idea how many "real" miles are in a nautical mile. I recently changed a nautical mile mention to miles somewhere on Wikipedia, can't recall where, and was surprised at the difference. American Wikipedia readers are majority landlubbers, and will be as lost as I am on how to calculate the differences. Yes, a good plan, to discuss this somewhere with more editors (although lots of editors follow this Moon mission page). I'd walk a nautical mile to comment in that one. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Heck, I had to fight to include statute miles (or as you say “real miles”) and miles per hour on aircraft pages. There was a passionate group of editors who felt that nautical miles/kilometers and knots/kilometers per hour were sufficient.

But I digress.

I’ve gone across the page and tried to ensure that statute miles are the primary units with km and nmi as secondary in parentheses. I don’t think it takes away too much and allows us to be consistent with the Apollo mission pages. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Link Honey to its wiki page please! Castorea (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The mission duration is specified as exactly 5 days, 6 hours and 46 minutes. This is subject to change every minute and should be removed or generalised to the day at the least. ~2026-21233-60 (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This uses the {{Time interval}} template, and will update automatically when the page or underlying template is updated. If you want the page to reflect the most up-to-date time interval, you can purge it. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 06:11, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Given this has come up multiple times now, I've added a note to the duration to explain that it's automatically updated, and to include a link to purge the cache. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section describing the Artemis II mission timeline, the phrase stating that the astronauts "will return" implies a guaranteed outcome. Given that space missions inherently involve uncertainty and possible delays, this wording may not be fully neutral.

I suggest revising "will return" to "is scheduled to return," which more accurately reflects that the return is planned but not guaranteed.

This change would improve the neutrality and precision of the article’s language.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-21338-23 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Certainly a morbid thought. That said, I'd note that the article doesn't say "the astronauts will return safely" or even "the astronauts will return," but rather "the Orion spacecraft will return," which seems like the kind of mathematical certainty it would be a bit pointless to hedge about. Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 08:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. By now it's already completely mathematically certain that Orion is on a trajectory to return to Earth. And while it's not entirely certain the astronauts will return safely, it's not entirely certain either that I won't have a heart attack before being able to submit this comment. Wikipedia doesn't rely upon "oh, it might not return safely, it might be a failed mission, etc." which is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Right now, we're relying on NASA's plan, which is for everything to go as planned, which involves returning safely. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 16:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The article begins with "Artemis 2 is an ongoing United States spaceflight mission." I think it is unfair to characterize Artemis 2 as a United States spaceflight mission. On board is a Canadian astronaut. Furthermore, the life support system for Orion is provided by ESA (source: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Orion/Artemis_II).

I think it is better to write "Artemis 2 is an ongoing spaceflight mission headed by NASA with international contributions from ..." ~2026-21299-77 (talk) 07:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Partially done. Point taken, but for brevity's sake I made it "Artemis II is an ongoing NASA-led spaceflight mission…" which matches the language of the Artemis program page. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that the Artemis II animations in the "Re-entry and splashdown" section start off the mission with the Artemis II in space. This implies that it was created in space (let alone just not making any sense since it had to be launched directly from Earth). I am wondering if someone can fix it with the Artemis II having the starting point placed on Earth at the start of the animations. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 02:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Good eye, didn't even notice that. The spacecraft's launch is, of course, implied, because if the animation started on Earth then the ships paths would cross in a jumbled and confusing way (please watch it with that in mind, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn, okay. Can someone make the Artemis II a little closer to Earth though? It appears like it starts off sort of into the journey. Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 03:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging animation creator: @Phoenix7777 Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 03:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

See the description of animation. Also it ends 140 km above Earth, not splashdown. If you are not satisfied, ask JPL, NASA to provide data.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

@Phoenix7777, thank you. I know the animation includes the Artemis II distance from the moon, but can it also include the distance from Earth? Floating Orb Talk! ^{my edits} 05:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Spacecraft does not have 11kW of power. It's the power of solar arrays attached to spacecraft. ~2026-21797-65 (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

german media and wikipeida e.g. declare the roman empire dead and write "artemis 2" instead of the roman II. should we do this here as well? --15:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC) ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

No, most English sources write it as Artemis II, not 2. Ekrpat-co-x.yy.p (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, NASA styles it as Artemis II. Doctroid (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

In the section on similar missions it says "However, unlike Apollo 8, Artemis II did not enter lunar orbit due to performance limitations with the ESM, which cannot independently depart from low lunar orbit."

But Artemis I went into (and departed from) lunar orbit — just not low lunar orbit. I had the impression, but can't back it up, Artemis II's non orbital mission was for crew safety reasons: The free return trajectory gets them back to Earth sooner and makes them less vulnerable to a problem with the SM rocket engine.

Whether that's right or not, that sentence seems to need correction or further explanation. Doctroid (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Artemis II" to "Orion" under the mission path graphic since Artemis II is the name of the mission, not the spacecraft ~2026-21903-54 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Not sure what "mission path graphic" you're referring to, but if it's the image captioned "Diagram showing the planned objectives of the Artemis II mission" there's no issue, since it's referring to the mission. Day Creature (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2026 (UTC)