Material from Pragyan (rover) was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Pragyan (rover).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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
I classified the article as "Class C" and "Mid Importance" in relation to the WikiProject SpaceFlight.Springfield2020 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowan Forest: I added far side at that time as I strongly remembered I had read it from multiple sources. When you changed it, I rushed to quote them but didn't find any mention of near or far side of moon. So, I didn't revert it. Here, I got one again. India sends unmanned mission to Moon’s far side If even you aren't sure, I'm wondering if @Ohsin: could help us confirm whether it's landing on near side or far side of the moon.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel: Hello, and thank you for using the talk page instead of resorting to endless reverts. I am aware that some media / reporters have published that the landing would take place on the far side of the Moon. Some have correctly published that it will be on the near side. Having that contradiction, we resort to the primary source: ISRO:
"The following criteria were used to final landing site selection for safe landing. Slope less than 15 deg. Boulders less than 0.5 meter. Crater and boulder distribution. Sunlit for at least 14 days. Visible to Earth for Radio communication (i.e. on the near side). Local terrain features such that they don’t shadow the site for long durations."[1]
Also, if you plot the official landing coordinates given, you will see they fall within the near side. In addition, it is known the LZ is close to the Manzinus (crater) and if you read that article, it states it is on the near side. I think this should settle the confusion, even for the media :-) Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you very much to both of you for clarification. Power descent as initiated and is underway.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
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 result of the move request was: Withdrawn.Soni (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So asking for a move to Pragyan as I cannot complete the move myself. Soni (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose『Pragyan is the higher learning—the science of controlling the inner feelings and consciousness.』Thus one can see Education should provide Vigyan and Pragyan; one can add Sanghikagyan or awareness of social ills and their cure." needs to be a dab page. Neither the rover nor festival are WP:PT in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi Thank you for making the page a WP:DAB page, that is a better solution than the one I considered. I withdraw my RM now that we have the disambiguation page. Soni (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There is consensus here for an article split. Doing so now. Soni (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
It seems like this article is about 2 different rovers. If so, it would be less confusing if the article were split. Nosferattus (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with a split but the ISRO is using using the generic names for the components meaning at present there are no WP:COMMONNAMEs available other than the one we are already using for this article. https://www.isro.gov.in/Chandrayaan3_Details.html does not even use names such as Vikram and Pragyan. Wikipedia articles such as Chandrayaan programme reflect this and is using generic names. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marc Kupper: When 2 topics share the same common name, we typically disambiguate them with an identifier. In this case, we could move all the content about the old rover to Pragyan (2019 rover). Nosferattus (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nosferattus I agree but am also trying to see what name(s) I would support. I'm also getting the sense that Pragyan is a style or model of rover. In this case we have the Chandrayaan-3 mission's Pragyan rover. We should not invent a name such as Pragyan 3 to distinguish it from the Chandrayaan-2 mission's Pragyan rover.
I would support Chandrayaan-3 rover as a name as that's what is being used on https://www.isro.gov.in/Chandrayaan3.html at present. Technically they used "Chandrayaan-3 ROVER" but I italicized Chandrayaan-3 and lower cased "rover" to match match Wikipedia's article naming conventions. We can call it the Chandrayaan-3 Rover in the body of the article. The ISRO also calls it the "Ch-3 Rover" but I believe that name is only understandable in the context of an article focused on a Chandrayaan mission or the overall program. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any name is fine with me as long as the two rovers get different articles. Nosferattus (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article talks about 2 different rovers on 2 different missions. Regardless of the success, each rover deserves its own article, prahaps names Pragyan 1 and Pragyan 2.SKAG123 (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could add something into the two pages that links them together explaining how Chandrayaan-2 was the failed predecessor or something Z!t!@n«T@1k» 15:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have counted ~5 people who've explicitly stated their Support and ~3 who Oppose. Z!t!@n«T@1k» 22:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split immediately If name is the matter of concern then it could be "Pragyan (Chandrayaan-3)"; And if some perfect names arise in future course the page could be renamed then. If the content associated is of concern then the details from the Page Chandrayaan 3 is enough; The page includes almost every basic information. It shall not get confused with that of Chandrayaan 2 since the page clearly states that it is that of Chandrayaan 3; It be that of Orbiter, Lander, Rover and all other related payloads/components included.
Please split up the page immediately. Since the the page is of current affairs and that of global significance, the page needed to be clear and direct, reflecting the available data/information to the best. After all, all future developments shall be updated/corrected. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 02:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split I support the proposed split and proposed names. Go for it! Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Instead of proposed split, the article should be rewritten and updated. The rovers are the same, the first mission failed, but the second is not. The situation is the same as with old PrOP-M rovers. Instead of splitting, just add subsections for 2019 and 2023 missions. Artem.G (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; in this case one of the rovers did not fail, so there will presumably be a section detailing its activities on the surface. This seems more analogous to me to NASA's Spirit and Opportunity. I would've split them already but I haven't had time to determine which content goes where. Exobiotic💬✒️ 16:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it looks similar, but because the first rover failed, there's not much that can be said about it. (Current text about 2019 mission should be trimmed - it's mostly about the lander and landing fail, and not about the rover). 2023 mission is the same mission that was planned for 2019, and with the scarcity of available info on rover operations I still think that it's better to have one article than two stubs. But if you think you can write something decent about both rovers, go for it! Artem.G (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "it's better to have one article than two stubs". Still, since they were two different rovers, I still support splitting.
another difference from Spirit and Oppy is that both rovers operated for years... Artem.G (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I confused Oppy with Oppie :P Z!t!@n«T@1k» 21:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, one of the rovers DID fail, not directly but it didn't deploy which is functionally the same as failing. So that's why I agree with @Artem.G that there should be 2 different subsections instead of two different articles. Hence I Oppose the proposition of the split Pranjal.3029 (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No comment. (Typed like 50 words then deleted it all :P) Z!t!@n«T@1k» 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm neutral on the concept of a split for now. Part of the problem is that the ISRO is not releasing a lot of information about mission operations resulting in next to zero news coverage that we can cite for the article.[1] The information the ISRO's web site available about the rovers for example appears to be generic. Much of it was clearly developed for the Chandrayaan-2 mission meaning keeping it in the combined Chandrayaan article makes sense. Interesting things are happening on the Moon but it's hard to translate something such as https://www.isro.gov.in/APXS.html into something for Wikipedia. That article includes a link to a video that shows the Chandrayaan-3 in operation.[2] --Marc Kupper|talk 06:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please at least split the infobox. The current infobox is a confusing mess. Nosferattus (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Since Chandrayaan-2 and Chandrayaan-3 are two different missions of ISRO, two seperate articles would be useful. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™🗿 11:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It makes no sense to split since the only difference between the two rovers is a trivial switching of ISRO's logo with Emblem of India on the left and right wheels respectively that would imprint them on the regolith, even so, it is now redundant because ISRO revealed that the regolith on the surface was more jagged than earlier expectation of a fine dust. There are neither any upgradations nor changes in the configurations of the rover, splitting would add to repeated and redundant information especially when the first one did not even had the chance to operate and conduct science. Instead a sub-section could be created within the article which mentions the existence of the previous rover and it's trivial change.Footy2000♡; 05:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It makes totally sense to split into two articles Standing Alone😄•Talk🦜 14:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why, though? Give a convincing argument and I might Support too, but for now I Oppose.Z!t!@n«T@1k» 12:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strongly — The Pragyan Rovers for Chandrayaan-2 and Chandrayaan-3 are completely different, and have no connection between themselves whatsoever. I say, splitting the articles is important, or else, people will confuse (and are probably already doing so) the two entirely different rovers. Like @Exobiotic said, it's like having the same Wikipedia article for Opportunity and Spirit, just because they (I mean, the Chandrayaan missions) have the same name. Not splitting, in my opinion, is ridiculous.
Support 2 articles are necessary, there is enough to say for each of them, if you only have only one page for both, it is painful to have an infobox for 2 different missions. --Io Herodotus (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is a need for separate articles currently whole article is confusing. Edasf (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I think article split is complete. I have tried to make sure neither article has info for the wrong rover, but there may be a couple incorrect references still. Someone more well versed will have to quick pass through the article to confirm. Soni (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A section called “operations” should be created within which all the rovers activities (or at least what Wikipedia deems significant enough to record) can be put. 105.8.4.132 (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also, when is it supposed to deploy? the article doesn't state ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
