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
"Uncrewed" redirects here. Shouldn't it really be the other way around (or, perhaps to Robotic spacecraft)? Unless we are specifically talking about the Apollo or Gemini missions, every space program with people has involved women. Azalucha (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m seeing a number of reversions happening without any attempt at localized page consensus, and would like to start a discussion so that, for the record, we can figure out and establish some consensus. @Rowan Forest:@Kranix:Garuda28 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment, just put some edits in to show the topic flow, and what was in the lede and its accompanying images and captions seemed to explain the topic well. Then the lists follow. A close call, so will keep watch on this discussion to be swayed by science. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you want to make the list, just split it off. Why waste people's time with a move?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page functions as both a descriptor article and a good list. I made a redirect to the list name so readers don't get lost. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems like the list in the article is intended to consist of a few representative examples, and that trying to rescope the article to be an exhaustive list would be redundant with List of Solar System probes. However, I'm curious if this article should be merged with Robotic spacecraft. Based on their intros, they seem to cover essentially the same topic (the only significant difference I noticed was that this article includes space telescopes in its definition, whereas Robotic spacecraft doesn't mention them). Actually, I see this merger has been proposed in 2013, a few sections up on this talk page.
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.
Artem.G, you recently reverted my edit, when I removed one section from Uncrewed spacecraft article (because info about a space probe should be on the relevant article). I don't think that there should be info about a space probe on this article, since this article is about an uncrewed spacecraft, not about a space probe. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see my answer on Talk:Space probe. But space probe is just an uncrewed spacecraft send to explore another planet, right? Why should there be another article that says just that, with nothing else? If you can find a reliable source that says that space probe has such and such differences from an uncrewed spacecraft then yes, there should be a separate article. Artem.G (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A space telescope is still an uncrewed spacecraft, just like a space probe. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, you're right here. I wouldn't argue with you, if you want to have separate article for Space probe (as it was before, poorly sourced stub that was mainly covered in other articles), you can start a discussion here or at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. Artem.G (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to use Wikipedia:wikiproject spaceflight? I don't understand. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can start new discussion on wikiproject's talk page. Artem.G (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
