Talk:Apollo 1 fire

Separation from the Mission article
Separating the fire/accident from the crew/mission article might have merit, if the fire/accident article becomes more technical and detailed than the original combined article would have allowed. However, I think the crew-specific sections such as the memorials and crew photos should remain in the crew/mission article and need not be duplicated here. - Dravecky (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point - I was basically trying to follow the structure of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia disaster articles, but given the hatnote used, it seems fair enough not to have detailed crew information when "For more information about Apollo 1's mission and crew," they can see the Apollo 1 article itself. I guess on the Challenger and Columbia article s it is included because they are it is such a comprehensive article s . Perhaps we should include the crew section if we are to make it of a similar size; although at the same time we need to consider that the Columbia article is merely an ex-good article, whereas the Challenger article which doesn't include a 'Crew' section is a featured article. So to sum up, you're right. :) --J. Atkins (talk - contribs) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that an important diffence is that Columbia and Chalanger were multi-flight space vehicles that have significant history unrelated to their accidents. The Apollo 1 fire is the bulk of the Apollo 1 story. Having separate accident articles makes more sense for Chalanger and Columbia. Do we maintain the pattern of the other articles or do we do what makes the most sense for this one? Can we compromise and have Apollo 1 fire redirect to a section of the Apollo 1 article? Ferritecore (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Josh Atkins (talk - contribs) 12:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)