Talk:IM-1

Move to IM-1 Odysseus lunar lander

I think that the name "Odysseus lunar lander" makes for a great mnemonic device, and should also be included in the article title.
Lighthumormonger (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that would make the article title unnecessary long. A redirect might be a good idea, though. Opportunity Rover (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2024

IM-1 → IM-1 mission – "IM-1" is vague. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose We should follow other such unmanned lunar missions where the word "mission" is omitted from the title of the article. See for example Chang'e 3, Chang'e 4, Chang'e 5, Chandrayaan-3, and Smart Lander for Investigating Moon. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I tried finding this article using the name that is in the news (Odysseus) and the only one I knew without going into a news article to find some other word to search with. There was nothing about this object in the first twenty hits. I think we need some way for people to easily get to information about the Odysseus lunar mission without knowing anything more than "Odysseus." It could be a redirect or something like "Odysseus (lunar lander)," which would presumably show up not too far down a hit list. Kdammers (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

A link was added to the Odysseus (disambiguation) page. Search engines should figure it out soon-ish. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 05:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Established precedent is that this isn’t necessary since the mission doesn’t have the same name as any other articles or well-known topics (unlike Curiosity (rover), for example). Really, the only thing this could be confused for is the interstellar meteor “IM1”, but I don’t think similarity is a good enough reason to move the article. Opportunity Rover (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Content of lead

There are well-established guidelines in WP:MOS for the content appropriate to the lead section of an article. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Including, but not limited to, overquoting, pull quotes, and following clauses with commas. Additionally, the lede should define the topic; the topic is clearly definable. Apollo 11 does not read, "In 1969 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted the fourth mission with the Apollo Lunar Module", as what lunar lander is used in a mission should not be the first sentence. IM-1 is historic because it is the first commercial lunar landing. Omitting that from the lede precludes the reader from understanding that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The current lede sentence is factually incorrect: IM-1 was not the first CLPS mission. That was Peregrine by Astrobotic. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I was aware of Peregrine but hadn't worded it correctly. I've amended the sentence while I regather what I had intended to say. I believe I meant to say that it was the first flight, but I had added the information about the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program afterwards. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I made an additional qualification in my last edit set: LCROSS was technically a landing, just not a lander. Arlo James Barnes 02:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Lander vs. impactor. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed section rename from 'Background and selection' to 'Motivation and funding'

A 'Motivation and funding' section might improve the article's coverage of topics currently discussed in the 'Background and selection' section and some of what's in the following 'Mission hardware' section. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think “background and funding” works better. “Motivation and funding” seems too specific. Opportunity Rover (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)