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.
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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was move. It is clear that the article does not belong at Saturn I (rocket) when Saturn I redirects to it. Whether it should be moved to Saturn I rocket is another matter. I suggest that a discussion take place about whether all, with some possible exceptions, rocket articles should have "rocket" in the name. I think they should. Also, there is no need to protect against moves because only admins can move articles if the other name already exists. -- Kjkolb 05:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ Nominate & Support --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail 18:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This page has moved about through disambiguation too many times. Move it one last time, and then protect from moving. --220.127.116.11 08:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Support. No disambiguation page for Saturn I. Bigtop 16:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment isn't one of the moons of Saturn also called Saturn I? 18.104.22.168 04:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the name "Mimas" is always used, and the article is correctly disambiguated from the Saturn I (rocket) page. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 11:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
My only concern is that the Saturn I isn't a particularly famous rocket. But if we can't think of anything else called 'Saturn I' that would be more famous then move it. Mark Grant 13:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The only ambiguity is the little used designation of Mimas that I mentioned above. I would say that more people would be looking for the rocket if they go to Saturn I, and would type Mimas for the moon. A modified version of the current disambiguation link on the Saturn I (rocket) page would remain in place on the moved article. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
IMO the article should be called Saturn I rocket. This then allows consistent naming with other rocket articles, such as Delta III rocket which must be disambiguated with Delta III class submarine. Many if not most named rockets have names which are likely candidates for disambiguation from other named hardware or technology. Andrewa 03:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
== Why someone think that you need to cite source to remove total bullshit? ==
S-V never ment to fly together with S-I & S-IV, even there was quite a few proposed configurations for Saturn I. The article was really misleading. If YOU( GW Simulations/whoever) want to include such BULLSHIT cite where you got that idea and then we discuss creditability of yr nonsense sources... TestPilottalk to me! 13:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should consider firstly being slightly more polite and civil about this, and secondly discussing why you want it removed, rather than just removing it when there was clear opposition to such actions. The statement which you removed was not only cited, but actually the most well referenced part of the article. see this page, which was cited in the text you removed. It may not have flown, but it was part of the design, and boilerplate S-Vs flew on the early flights. Now I would like to see some evidence to the contrary --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 14:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is a good reference. If you take a closer look - C-2 version of Saturn I had 20 engines in 4 stages (18 engines final version 3 stages proposed in 1961). . There was also a proposal for several version with S-V. But none of major propositions had
Hmm... Looks like yr are right. I'll double check when get back home, but yeah. Seems that I have to say sorry. Sorry.TestPilottalk to me! 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
The previous section heading, "A brush with death" tends to imply a near-fatal accident, or a near-mishap which could have been fatal to humans, rather than the "death" of the project. Also overly-dramatic writing. Substituted "Near-cancellation". Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)