Talk:Progress M1-5

Merge
I'd like to suggest that Deorbit of Mir be merged into this article, as it contains no content that this article (which is much more extensive and better written) does not. Colds7ream (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Progress M1-5 is too long to accomodate details of Mir deorbit. The topic deserves a separate coverage. Twilight chill  t   16:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's long because it has all of the details of the deorbit already. A redirect would be fine. Colds7ream (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The background and deorbit sections there currently have WP:TOPIC problems. Twilight chill  t   19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They give details on the spacecraft's mission, and the article passed a GAN with those sections included. I support merging the Mir deorbit article into this one, unless sufficient content can be found to expand it without duplication. -- G W … 19:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree that two articles should be merged here, because of the obvious overlap. But I think Deorbit of Mir is a better name for the Progress M1-5 article. Currently, the article Progress M1-5 is primarily about the deorbiting of Mir, and not about the spacecraft itself, so in this sense the title "Progress M1-5" fails WP:COMMONNAME. So I would support a merge into Progress M1-5 (which is clearly the superior article), and then a move to another article title, such as Deorbit of Mir, or Mir deorbit and re-entry, or Mir reentry (which seems to be the most common, according to Google searches). Mlm42 (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mlm, do you really want to restart that debate? -- G W … 00:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm always up for some rational level-headed discussion, yes. Mlm42 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, there is no difference between the proposal discussed at HSF a few weeks ago, and the one you're proposing here now. Now perhaps I just don't like something which looks like the thin end of a wedge, but given the previous discussion I would oppose in the strongest possible way any proposal which did not leave an article of some kind here. As a compromise, I might accept merging the two articles, moving them elsewhere whilst retaining GA status, and then creating a new one here to cover just the Progress spacecraft, however I am not sure that any move could be achieved whilst retaining GA status, since this article is currently centred around the mission of the Progress spacecraft. -- G W … 00:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As Twilightchill pointed out, the article currently has WP:TOPIC problems, since it is not primarily about the spacecraft; the article contains sections which are primarily about Mir's reentry, with a lot of detail. The analogy with STS-51-L and Space Shuttle Challenger disaster is appropriate here. A move to an article named after the reentry (such as Mir's reentry), and then creating a spacecraft article, seems like reasonable compromise. It's not clear how readers will benefit from have two separate articles, but you seem keen on having an article for every individual spacecraft, with no exceptions. I'm not sure what happens to GA status in the event of a page move.. maybe the reworked article could go through a GA review to keep its status. Mlm42 (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And the thing is that when we are describing the deorbit, the main subject is Mir, not Progress. I think Progress would benefit from a brief outline of deorbit with a link to main Deorbit article.  Twilight chill  t   10:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, now pretty much the entire contents of this article have been copied over to Deorbit of Mir, I'm not entirely sure what to do with these articles... Colds7ream (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to retain the current configuration, or to redirect deorbit of Mir here. This is the configuration that achieved GA status, and the other article is some way from that quality. -- G W … 19:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)