Talk:Prichal (ISS module)

WDGraham's proposal

WDGraham has proposed a merger of the articles, I'll start a section here for editors to speculate why, or for WDGraham to make the suggestion, if he'd like to. Penyulap _talk 05:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, it's a fairly obvious duplicate article merger, so there isn't really much to speculate about. --W. D. Graham 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well don't look at me, I wasn't the editor who copied out the information from this article into the other article. I had originally figured the other one was good to leave as is, for the older design. The newer design, up to date info and of course name, I figured pop it in here, as it's inevitably the destination of the contemporary information. I have no opinion on a merger, if it is done, I'd figure it's good to check back prior to the copy out of this article into that article to see what was there originally, as there might be things to pop into the history section of this article, if you intend to merge the old and new designs into the same article. For readers who are unaware, it's pretty common for module designs to change in the years leading up to launch, or a single module to multiply ! like the NEM's. Penyulap _talk 20:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This articles of the same kind. They should be merged.--Monareal (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

They have similarities, that is true. Also, the other article has been changed to match this article. The topic of the other article is an older design of this module. If we cannot find enough material on the older module design, we would make the other article a section of history in this one, if we find more, we leave it there and put a summary of it into this article. Penyulap ☏ 23:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pinpointing the source of the confusion

The other article which WD suggested should be merged, is not only the wrong subject for a merger, it's incorrectly named. Just because the name is similar doesn't mean an article should be merged WD.

The subject of the other article should remain, as it says in the intitial plans section of that article, before it got muddled, "The Universal Docking Module (UDM) (Russian: Универсальный стыковочный модуль)"

The Universal docking module (UDM) and the Node module (NM) are not the same subject, not even close. First and second and third pages after a fast google show the UDM.

I don't agree with WD and I don't agree with the editor who is calling himself Jeffsapko where he moved the page here.

The problem most likely stems from confusing the module with the mission. Just because you can plan on parking your families 3 cars at a house next door to the party, but then when you get closer to the date of the party you're told it's a different house where you can park your 3 cars at, doesn't make the new house the same as the old house. They are still different houses although they are similar in being able to accommodate 3 cars. The UDM was capable of docking a few different ships to the ROS that's true, and the NM now fills that mission, allowing many ships to dock. But they are not the same module, not even in the same class.

I suggest stop with the mergers and moving and start writing a bit more in the UDM article so both the casual reader as well as the next editor to read it has some idea of what it is about. The copying of the new information I put into the Node Module article when I made it, into the other article doesn't help. Penyulap ☏ 08:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Merged

Since the objections seem to be on the grounds that the UM and UDM should have separate articles, I've boldly merged the articles and proposed a split of the UDM content to its own article. --W. D. Graham 12:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see why this section needs to be split out. It is providing background for the subject of the article. By all means create a new article on the UDM if you have sufficient material. Op47 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2 November 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 16:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Uzlovoy Module → Prichal (ISS module) – Actually, Uzlovoy Module is not a name, it is a description (nodal module). The name of this module is Prichal (Berth), which is used by numerous Russian sources. Maybe there are more appropriate variants (like Nodal module Prichal for example, as in ru.wikipedia.org), but the main point is to change the name from Uzlovoy to Prichal. Any comments and propositions are welcomed; pinging prior authors @WDGraham, Penyulap, Monareal, Op47, Jarrod Baniqued, Nickst, and Calibrator:. Igor Krein (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. KCVelaga (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Though I will note that Prichal, unlike Zvezda, Rassvet, or Pirs, doesn't have similarly named articles that requires disambiguation. 10:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

ST-type fairing

What is meant by that? --Bernardoni (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)