Talk:SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Article name: cmt |
MadeYourReadThis (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::Reading the arguments of both previous commenters, I tend to agree with TMV943: it is a mission that is unique, not really the spacecraft capsule alone. The mission, of course, will necessarily cover both the spacecraft capsule (which of course has substantial new instrumentation that was not on the privious capsule flight) as well as the entire Falcon 9 launcher system. Thus, at this point, I would support an article name change more in line with the mission, rather than merely the capsule. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 06:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
:::Reading the arguments of both previous commenters, I tend to agree with TMV943: it is a mission that is unique, not really the spacecraft capsule alone. The mission, of course, will necessarily cover both the spacecraft capsule (which of course has substantial new instrumentation that was not on the privious capsule flight) as well as the entire Falcon 9 launcher system. Thus, at this point, I would support an article name change more in line with the mission, rather than merely the capsule. Cheers. [[User:N2e|N2e]] ([[User talk:N2e|talk]]) 06:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::The article name needs to be change. This is an article on the mission, not the vehicle. There will be other missions with that vehicle. --[[User:RadioFan|RadioFan]] ([[User talk:RadioFan|talk]]) 13:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 13:21, 7 December 2010
Article name
I didn't mind the change from Flight 2 to CTOS Flight 1, but Dragon C1? SpaceX themselves never call it that. And from the source it looks like it's just the name of the payload spacecraft. I think it should be reverted back TMV943 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- "it looks like it's just the name of the payload spacecraft" - so why shouldn't that be the name of an article about said spacecraft? --GW… 02:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- The article isn't about the spacecraft, it's about the mission. The spacecraft already has it's own article, if there's anything special to note about the "C1" specifically, it could be noted as a section there, but for this article, we should go with a mission name SpaceX or NASA use TMV943 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Reading the arguments of both previous commenters, I tend to agree with TMV943: it is a mission that is unique, not really the spacecraft capsule alone. The mission, of course, will necessarily cover both the spacecraft capsule (which of course has substantial new instrumentation that was not on the privious capsule flight) as well as the entire Falcon 9 launcher system. Thus, at this point, I would support an article name change more in line with the mission, rather than merely the capsule. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- The article name needs to be change. This is an article on the mission, not the vehicle. There will be other missions with that vehicle. --RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Reading the arguments of both previous commenters, I tend to agree with TMV943: it is a mission that is unique, not really the spacecraft capsule alone. The mission, of course, will necessarily cover both the spacecraft capsule (which of course has substantial new instrumentation that was not on the privious capsule flight) as well as the entire Falcon 9 launcher system. Thus, at this point, I would support an article name change more in line with the mission, rather than merely the capsule. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)