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 Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry 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.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Keep current name and wait for more information before making a decision.
I stated this on the other article but I like the "[Company name] COTS Demo" for the demo missions and "CRS SpX/Orb-#" for the CRS missions. Although if the mission patch has something other then Orbital COTS Demo on it then I'll once again be undecided.--Craigboy (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who created this article, I have no objection to renaming as long as we have a reliable source. In looking at the history of some of these, it seems that the official names from NASA are kept secret or hidden for a while. The current article name is used by Space Flight Now and it is actively updated, but I'm not sure where they get their information. One other point to consider, the NASA flight name may not be used by all sources since the mission may have multiple names. WikiProject Spaceflight may have some guidelines and maybe a note there would provide sage advice. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there is no solid name yet. I propose we wait either until Orbital puts out a press kit for the mission or it actually launches and we get some more information from NASA. --WingtipvorteX(talk)∅01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion has been quiet for two months, I'll ask for some pointers and maybe some metrics that shows the proposal is the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page came onto my radar because I am going through the 50 odd {{movenotice}} templates and removing them (adding {{requested move}} templates to those without them -- which is most of them). Wingtipvortex you asked me why I suggested user:Craigboy made the request, my observation was that he made the edit that placed the {{movenotice}} on the article (and so initiated a move request). If you want to remove my comment from the top of this request and replace it with one of your own, then I won't object. However there is no point in keeping move discussions open indefinitely, and it is not a good idea to keep an editor to editor message in article space for months and months. The comment from Vegaswikian indicates one of the reasons why this sort of on off move conversation is not desirable. If the consensus after seven days is to keep the name where it is then the request can be closed with a consensus not to move. When there is enough evidence that the name has changed then a new WP:RM can be opened to see if the consensus is that it should be moved. -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, thank you, I understand now. Craigboy was indeed the one to add the template, but with a name I suggested. We had been going through quite a bit of information at the time in regards to what the correct name for these mission should be. Seeing as we were waiting for more information, I am not surprised we forgot to close the discussion. Regardless, the matter was settled. I will edit the original request as my own and close the RM with a consensus to wait. Thank you for the clarification. --WingtipvorteXPTT∅17:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
We won't be able to effectively communicate through edit summaries so I feel we should discus it here. Previously the consensus was to wait, since then we've received plenty of new info on the upcoming missions thus these articles have become longer and richer. But although we've received plenty of info on the missions themselves we have not really learned more about what the missions will be called. So right now we're stuck with several names that aren't consistent with one another (COTS Demo Flight 1, Dragon C2+, CRS SpX-1, Cygnus 1, and CRS Orb-1) so I think we should adopt a temporary naming system to avoid confusing the reader.--Craigboy (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Cygnus 1 → Cygnus Orb-D1 – The last move request was closed pending more information. Now that information is available and "Cygnus Orb-D1" or "Orb-D1" seems to have become the accepted name for this mission, so I'd like to suggest that the article now be moved accordingly. --W.D.Graham 15:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC) W.D.Graham15:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supporta move, given the new info, but not sure Cygnus Orb-D1 will stand the test of time. I will support consensus on what the name should be, but will point out the just possibly, Orbital Cygnus D1, Orbital CRS-D1orOrbital COTS Demo Flight 1, might be worth considering. Why? Because I believe it should definitely start with the name of the company flying the mission, which is consistent with how Wikipedia has been naming the various SpaceX COTS and CRS missions: see specifically, SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1 for the closest analog to this demo mission by Orbital.
Perhaps should skip ...Cygnus... entirely, as we don't name the SpaceX missions after their capsule type alone, but more in terms of the overall mission.
Having said all that, I do see on the mission patch that NASA seems to be using "Orb-D1" as a shortened form for Orbital D1 so possibly just plain Orbital D1 would be sufficient. Very sorry to not be bringing this into a narrowing toward closure; but probably best to discuss it first, prior to naming it and then having future re-naming discussions go on indefinitely. N2e (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, the choice of format for the SpaceX articles was down to what SpaceX and NASA were calling them. I favour Orb-D1 over Orbital D1 since the shorter form seems to be in more common use. I'd also be opposed to one of the suggestions, "Orbital CRS-D1", since this is a COTS flight not a CRS flight (although the programmes are clearly very closely related). --W.D.Graham14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting to see some good data on what the name should be. Yesterday's ISS NASA TV show used Cygnus, I believe exclusively, while I was watching. So, as I said in the earlier discussion, I'm not sure what the common name is. I think we may have a good idea of the official name, but is that what we should be using? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (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.
I've set up AstRoBot to maintain the orbit data in this article. If it stays berthed to the ISS long enough, it would be interesting to see how the bot handles orbital elements for docked spacecraft. --W.D.Graham14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the images from the mission haven't been released to the public yet because the NASA employees in charge of doing so were deemed non-essential and thus furloughed. Right now no one knows how long the shutdown will last but it may be after Cygnus' mission has ended; so we're probably going to have to add images to the article post-completion.--Craigboy (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Cygnus Orb-D1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
