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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose, especially the truncating of Command Module Columbia, which is a proper name and the topic of this page. Adding 'Apollo' is unnecessary, per brevity and understandability of the topic. The page focuses on the historically important spacecraft, the flown command module and presently exhibited artifact, and not the lost service module component. The present name fits the topic, does not confuse, and gives sufficient information to describe the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the COMMONNAME used by RS which focus on the subject such as Apollo to the Moon: A History in 50 Objects which has a chapter titled "Command Module Columbia, Apollo 11" or Rockets, Missiles, and Spacecraft of the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution which reads, "The Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia was the living quarters for the three-man crew during most of the first manned lunar landing mission in July 1969." The latter book ends the chapter (also dedicate solely to this craft) with a paragraph which partly reads, "... on July 24, they discarded the Service Module and entered Earth's atmosphere. Columbia's exterior is covered with epoxy-resin ablative heatshield." The crucial thing to notice is that the heatshield was covered by the service module for much the spacecraft's journey. It was only when the service module was discarded that Columbia achieved it's true form.
Both the service module and the lunar module were attached to Columbia for much of its journey, but they are not part of the spacecraft anymore than the Saturn V was part of this spacecraft, or the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and the Space Shuttle external tank was part of Challenger, Atlantis, Columbia, Endeavour, Enterprise and Discovery. Columbia refers only to the command module. The service module as the name suggests is just a service rocket, similar to the Saturn V launching vehicle. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
