This category 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 articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
It is absolutely wrong. GLONASS is a navigation satellite, Ekspress (satellite constellation) are communications satellites, and those are just two examples that I've worked in the last month. Both series are Earth satellites of Russia but no Earth observation, which is a specific category of satellite type! Russia also had satellites around other planets, that's why this category was done this way. Proposing the category move without a minimum understanding about the nature of artificial satellites is not good editing. Now I have to go around and create new categories and go article by article seeing if it applies. – Baldusi (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming to Earth observation was a complete mistake. I don't know if any of you is aware of the fact the EO specifically excludes military satellites, for example. And a lot of scientific satellite that do orbit Earth are not Earth Observation, like space telescopes or Sun observation. Now that I went over the satellites on the original category, I had not only to create two more categories under Category:Satellites of Russia, but after cleaning only 3 (three) satellites were left. One thing is renaming for better scoping, another is completely changing the meaning of the category. Better delete it than do such a thing. Please, don't mess with the highly technical articles without a reasonable understanding. I'm sorry if I come across to strong, but I'm extremely annoyed by a successive series of actions of editors without the most basic understanding of technical subject and I might be overly sensitive. I really want this to be a good lesson for everybody. – Baldusi (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]