Talk:Starlink

Strong technical source

This article published on 3 June—before the 4 June launch—has a good deal of information on the constellation, how the orbit raises are done, where the sats are ending up, etc. Will be a good source for improving the article. Evaluating SpaceX’s Starlink Push by Danny Lentz, 3 June 2020.

Removal of sourced content

Just wanted to bring this up since someone reverted the edits I made, and I just readded it as I feel very strongly that it should be included. Nobody's challenging the sources themselves, and the justification given in the revert didn't make sense to me. I didn't see a good justification according to our content removal guidelines as to why the content should be removed. See guidelines/etiquette on content removal for reasons for removal, listing them below for why I think it should be included.

1.) Unsourced Information: This is not unsourced information, I have three reliable sources cited; there is no serious issue of lack of sources. See the following 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I could keep going but I hope my point there was made. It was widely reported on by reliable sources.

2.) Inaccurate information: This is not inaccurate information. It has been widely reported on.

3.) Irrelevant information: Not irrelevant, it's relevant given it follows Musks's projections on Starlinks presented in 2017.

4.) Inappropriate content for Wikipedia: I don't see how you can call that inappropriate, though I'm open to good faith arguments.

My issue is that if the revenue projections are noteworthy enough to include in the lede, then so is the widely reported follow up to those projections showing that they were VERY optimistic and not at all what was actually achieved. Not including this would be misleading to our readers. Chuckstablers (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I see there have been no further revisions, I'll give this a couple more days and archive it unless anyone has any comments. Chuckstablers (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chuckstablers: I reviewed the additions you made and I don't see any issue with them. As you note, they are very well-sourced. - Dyork (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Good, just wanted to make sure somebody else chimed in. Thanks. Chuckstablers (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Disaster relief

Starlink is frequently used to restore connectivity after disasters. While it's part of the internet access, I think it's worth discussing that in its own section. It is extensively discussed in news articles. Earthquake in Japan, fire in Maui, hurricane Ian, floods in Germany, Tonga, ... mfb (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You are free to add sourced content to wikipedia in the section you feel are appropriate, or create new section if it doesn't exist. CodemWiki (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The table with the countries is broken

After adding India and deleting this data, the table moved out. You need to roll back the settings to 21.1.2024 Swatsded (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent data on recent launch

The launch was 8-1, i.e. the first launch to group 8. We list group 8 as a 33 degree shell, but Vandenberg cannot launch to that inclination. Heavens-above has it as 53.2 degrees. Does that mean there is no 33 degree shell? Or is that another group? --mfb (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, there is no 33 degree shell yet. Group 7 and 8 are populating the same authorized shell. Gen2 satellites are deployed in a less orderly manner than gen1. I added nominal altitude and actual altitude columns since these altitudes differ. It's going to be even more disorderly assuming the FCC approves deployment of satellites with direct-to-cellular antennas in the 53 deg inclination 340 km altitude shell. Group 8 satellites will be split between two authorized shells. Hopefully Jonathan McDowell supports the split and we can put Group 8 DTC stats in a separate row in the table. — Sbsail ^talk 00:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)