Talk:I-4 satellite

Possible merger

@Sean Walters89, Sdsds, and WDGraham: I was thinking of merging Inmarsat-4 F1, Inmarsat-4 F3, and Inmarsat-4A F4 into this article. At a glance I did not see much independent coverage for these missions, although combined I think there is probably enough information for this article. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 03:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Not Merge. due to a lack of consensus. Terasail^[Talk] 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Inmarsat-4 F1, Inmarsat-4 F3, and Inmarsat-4A F4 into I-4 satellite. There's a small number of sources independently talking about each satellite that I think can easily be merged into this article without it becoming very long. The only concern I have is preserving the infobox information post-merge, with the current amount of text there would not be enough room for all of them. Might be able to condense into a table or similar. Kees08 (Talk) 17:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:NOTPAPER It works as it is, there is no benefit to any such merge. Any useful content can be copied without merging. A merged article would no longer have an infobox per satellite (or if it did, that would soon be deleted by one of the "no multiple infobox" dogmatists) and that certainly would be a loss. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  I am not sure the individual satellites meet WP:GNG, I found a couple of sources that briefly mention them, but they are typically discussed as a group (like at EO Portal) or in press releases. If we really want the orbit info, we can create a table in this article. Kees08 (Talk) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The concern about the infobox can easily be solved à la Falcon 9. --Soumyabrata ^{stay at home} _{wash your hands} ^{to protect from coronavirus} 04:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support it looks like there is little independent coverage of the individual satellites (I could only find Gunter's page and the NASA/COSPAR catalogue in a quick search). I do not think the orbital information is a tragic loss in the merge, especially if links to COSPAR are provided.--Cincotta1 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment this article is marked as a stub with the implication someone will one day expand it. For that reason I recommend giving it time, so: weak oppose. Note that the proposal essentially seems to say the individual satellite articles aren't notable; perhaps a discussion of that on the talk pages of those articles makes sense? (sdsds - talk) 03:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support Would be dumb not too (LoganBlade - talk) 03:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  On the first point, the article has been in main space for about eleven years now. On the second point, when I nominated this for merging I posted notices on each page/talk page to direct all input here (as WP:MERGE suggests). This article would be expanded with the material from the individual pages, putting it at around start class or so. Kees08 (Talk) 09:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Not just the loss of infoboxes per Andy Dingley. There's more sources e.g. [1] mentions Inmarsat 3-F2 Inmarsat-4 F3 which can be expanded with SBAS / GNSS info etc, which are WP:USEFUL. They're notable and borderline Starts so not WP:PERMASTUB. Widefox; talk 10:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.