Talk:List of Progress missions

Format

The current table is too wide, resulting in some information being squashed. Would it be a good idea to change the format to one similar to the timeline of spaceflight articles. For example:

Spacecraft	S/N	Launch (GMT)	Carrier Rocket	Launch Pad	Space Station	First Docking			Second Docking			Deorbit	Remarks
						Port	Docking	Undocking	Port	Docking	Undocking
Progress M-MIM2	888	28 September 1980 08:08	Soyuz-2.1a	Site 31/6	Salyut 6	Zvezda zenith	30 September 00:12	28 February 2008 06:08	Zvezda	29 February 2009 00:22	28 November 2022 06:03	30 September 2029 06:52	ISS-888P, Hard docking did not occur until 3 December due to debris on the docking port left by Progress M-45 Deployed Kolibri-2000 satellite on 19 March at 22:28

Would become:

Spacecraft	Launch (GMT)	Carrier Rocket	Station	Docking(s)			Decay
		Launch Pad	S/N	Port	Docking	Undocking
	Remarks
Progress M-MIM2	28 September 1980 08:08	Soyuz-2.1a	Salyut 6	Zvezda zenith	30 September 00:12	28 February 2008 06:08	30 September 2029 06:52
		Site 31/6	888	Zvezda	29 February 2009 00:22	28 November 2022 06:03
	ISS-888P, Hard docking did not occur until 3 December due to debris on the docking port left by Progress M-45, deployed Kolibri-2000 satellite on 19 March at 22:28

Like the TLS articles, this could be formatted using templates to make input easier. I think this would improve the display of this article. --GW… 12:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Purpose of this article

I've reverted a series of (undiscussed) edits which changed the focus of this article from the Progress spacecraft in the context of a series of missions, to the spacecraft in the context of the space station programmes. We already have articles for these missions in the context of the stations, they are List of unmanned spaceflights to Salyut space stations, List of unmanned spaceflights to Mir and List of unmanned spaceflights to the International Space Station. This article is about the series of Progress spacecraft, so to change to that format would make it completely redundant. In any case, such a major change of format should be discussed first, so I am reverting per WP:BRD. --W. D. Graham 21:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The old table was not actually on this page, it was partly on the page and also hanging off the side, as can be seen here, just before I started reformatting, so there is little if any need to ask first, which is recommended sometimes but never prerequisite.

I think in this case it's good to ask which format, the current format or the march format presents the information better. Penyulap ☏ 23:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with W. D. Graham on this one. Anyway, Penyulap I don't understand what you mean by "partly on the page and also hanging off the side".--Craigboy (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility, it doesn't display properly on a large number of editors displays. there are tools to check and see what a page will look like at a given resolution, I can find one if you like.

The three links given don't point to a similar list, those lists all include other kinds of craft, rather than just the progress and it's minor variant for small modules. Also, as a list of just progress flights, I think it should be considered that the march format is still a stronger list, even if it's optimized aesthetically by removing unnecessary columns, for example, Hands up anyone who can look at the current list and tell me how many progress flights there have been ? I mean this is meant to be a list, so why do we need to sit there and count through 140 progress flights to find out how many there have been ? I think the march format is stronger at the moment, I'd like to see a reason why the redundant empty cols are required to present the information any better than the march format.

I'm not suggesting creating articles for a list of progress flights for example, to MIR or the ISS, although I guess there is little reason why an editor couldn't if they wanted to add detail to the lot. If it were the case, then this list would be the main list where the three were combined, and so the march format would do a good job at both being the three separate lists, and also being the one single defining list of all flights. The march format makes it easy to tally up flights to MIR or the ISS for example, even though it doesn't give a tally outright for just MIR or the ISS. It does give an overall tally which is I think, a good idea for a list of progress craft. A lot of thought went into the format, more than I have mentioned here so far, so take a careful look, with a critical eye, to both of them. Penyulap ☏ 04:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, in order to mitigate the accessibility issue, I retained the multi-line part of your format; thereby eliminating the second docking column to reduce width. As for removing the count, that can be subjective; M-SO1 and M-MIM2, for example, only used part of the spacecraft, so they may, or may not, be included in somebody's definition of the spacecraft. If you really insist, though, we could highlight milestones, say every 25 or 50 missions. The unmanned lists may include other vehicles, however they are predominantly Progress, so a reader can just ignore the others if they so wish. --W. D. Graham 07:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With the ideas about whether a progress is a progress or not I'd just go with whatever the Soviet/Russian agency called them, so, what did they call them ?

The Japanese article I note has the list split into different parts, all onscreen, ordered by station, but no numbering, and it has empty columns. The Bulgarian article is as bad as this one was before I reformatted it. It is a single offscreen slab with no numbering.

The best looking article by far is the Russians own article, it's sweet and brief. Here is a sample

Экспедиции на орбитальную станцию Салют-7 (1981—1985)

№	Корабль	С/Н	Дата старта	Ракета	Дата стыковки	Сход с орбиты
13	Прогресс-13	114	23 мая 1982	Союз-У	25 мая 1982	6 июня 1982
14	Прогресс-14	117	10 июля 1982	Союз-У	12 июля 1982	13 августа 1982
15	Прогресс-15	112	18 сентября 1982	Союз-У	20 сентября 1982	16 октября 1982
16	Прогресс-16	115	31 октября 1982	Союз-У	2 ноября 1982	14 декабря 1982
17	Прогресс-17	119	17 августа 1983	Союз-У	19 августа 1983	17 сентября 1983
18	Прогресс-18	118	20 октября 1983	Союз-У	22 октября 1983	16 ноября 1983
19	Прогресс-19	120	21 февраля 1984	Союз-У	23 февраля 1984	1 апреля 1984
20	Прогресс-20	116	15 апреля 1984	Союз-У2	17 апреля 1984	7 мая 1984
21	Прогресс-21	121	7 мая 1984	Союз-У	10 мая 1984	26 мая 1984
22	Прогресс-22	124	28 мая 1984	Союз-У	30 мая 1984	15 июля 1984
23	Прогресс-23	123	14 августа 1984	Союз-У	16 августа 1984	28 августа 1984
24	Прогресс-24	125	21 июня 1985	Союз-У	23 июня 1985	15 июля 1985
25	Космос-1669	126	19 июля 1985	Союз-У	21 июля 1985	30 августа 1985

So in looking at all the ideas available, I just pulled together whatever was practical and an improvement. I didn't go for the total Russian minimalist approach as there are comments and refs in the English article, and I didn't want to lose any of that work at all. Actually I rewrote a few of the comments to make them sound clear, but I adopted the numbering of spacecraft because Launches of spacecraft are significant and I think knowing how many launches of a particular spacecraft there have been is important encyclopedic knowledge to have. I figure just put it in there, and by all means change around the numbers if you decide a progress isn't a progress, actually I think one of them actually isn't a progress, Kosmos 1669 is not a progress, but hey, on the list, off the list, whatever, someone else can decide. I just think giving people a little help counting is cool. What do we have against this counting idea ? Count me in for counting, as I don't want to discount the count.

I also like the ordering same as march format and Japanese and Russian articles, rather than mixing them up with chronology, having them grouped lets you see at a glace how many went to MIR and so on, having them as a single slab, well, what are we doing there ?

Oh, and looking at the march edition, I'd figure that the text regarding the Kosmos would go better at the bottom of the Flights to Salyut 7 section, right next to the mention of the Kosmos on the list. Penyulap ☏ 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more important to put the spacecraft in their place within the Progress series, rather than other programmes. That is the whole point of this list. Therefore, listing them chronologically makes far more sense. --W. D. Graham 09:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What is your opinion on numbering versus no numbering ? Penyulap ☏ 10:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't include it, its an extra column, and there are several spacecraft for which numbering is subjective. --W. D. Graham 10:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of lists with explanations as to what makes the list and what doesn't, both versions of this list already have commentary about the Kosmos. Penyulap ☏ 01:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be included. I just don't think we should be making people's minds up for them about whether it should be counted or not. --W. D. Graham 06:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless were going to the March format, I think it's pretty safe to say nobody is going to sit and count to 140 on their fingers, so I think we won't need to worry about the Kosmos. Penyulap ☏ 09:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't necessarily one or the other, however I feel that it is best as it is now, without numbers. --W. D. Graham 09:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Why ? are numbers a problem, or is there some advantage without them ? Penyulap ☏ 23:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So if people want to know how many Progress flights there have been, it's like look elsewhere ? use your fingers ? were not an encyclopedia ? Penyulap ☏ 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Given your concerns about the width of the table, I'm surprised you advocate adding another column. How about, as a compromise, we denote every twenty-fifth flight in the remarks field, to ease counting. --W. D. Graham 15:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, popping over from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists at the solicitation of User:Penyulap. Numbering lists which aren't numbered by an outside source is considered WP:Original Research. For your dilemma, I suggest adding a sentence or two to the beginning describing how many there are and why there might be different counts. But stating such and such a flight is the 85th flight, if the Russians didn't label it as such, isn't a good idea. Dkriegls (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done much checking of the Russian sites, but I find pretty much only lists sorted by variant, and none that have all listed as a single slab, are there any like that you guys know of ? I haven't generally seen much on the Russian Agency site in the way of lists for pretty much anything, but most of the encylopedias and spacey sites seem to have lists of one sort or another. spaceflight.com seems to keep a number list for the flights over the last decade or so, any thoughts ? Penyulap ☏ 06:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how other websites sort or present their lists, all Dkriegls was referring to was the count column. --W. D. Graham 07:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spaceflight now sees popular on wikipedia, list with 43rd progress, 42nd progress and so on.

So if it doesn't matter how other sites order their lists, what is the thinking on putting it into a single slab ? Penyulap ☏ 08:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

a) they are in chronological order, which makes sense since we are talking about the programme as a whole - List of space shuttle missions isn't divided by orbiter; and b) it keeps the column widths consistent, making the table easier to read. --W. D. Graham 08:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The shuttle is no guide to the Progress, they are like cabbage and ducks, not to mention the shuttle missions have implied numbering such as 135. I notice that other encyclopaedias have lists according to variant. I would be thinking comparing this list of progress flights to other lists of progress flights would be more useful than comparing it to a list of train wrecks (sorry, that just slipped in there), at least it's easier to reference if it is referenced to progress flights rather than shuttle flights. Penyulap ☏ 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Split up

I'm springing up a topic that has been a point of discussion earlier, that is the splitting of the article into section. The current split seems doesn't seem to be navigable. I propose dividing up the article like this:

1. Flights from 1978-1988
2. Flights from 1988-1998
3. Flights from 1998-2008
4. Flights from 2008-

The current listing is from 1978 to 2010 and then 2010-. The problem is: Three quarters of the flights are from 1978-2010 which makes it look like it had not been split at all. Zince34' 07:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the current split should ever have been made. Had I not been fairly inactive the last few months I would have reverted and advised @Ninney: to discuss these changes first. As it is there's been very little activity on the page since that change and splitting had previously been objected to, so I'm going to somewhat belatedly BRD the addition of the split. In my opinion arbitrarily splitting the list by date makes little sense and I don't think there is enough content to justify it. Also as I stated in the previous discussion splitting tables into sections often reduces readability as it disrupts column widths - which is at odds with the objective listed in the summary for the edit which introduced the split; to improve "readability & maintenance". --W. D. Graham 18:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a good split should help maintainance, but the 1978-2010 does not help at all. Zince34' 05:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it would help with maintenance, but I don't think that outweighs the reduction in readability; making the article accessible to readers (e.g. by ensuring consistent column sets and widths) should take precedence. --W. D. Graham 06:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@WDGraham: It would be easier to navigate after a split. And by the way, Column width seems to have been already resolved. Zince34' 06:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the split. That's what fixed it. --W. D. Graham 21:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@WDGraham: Sorry, I didn't get you. Hg andVenus 12:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And I've changed my signature, don't get confused. Hg andVenus 12:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Error

According to the Table, ISS-66P will be launched later this month and docked to ISS last July. Clever! 11:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.84.71 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Progress missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003151820/http://www.astronautix.com/project/salyut7.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/project/salyut7.htm
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ilAZ94fo?url=http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proressm.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proressm.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430061053/http://www.spaceflight101.com/progress-m-25m-mission-updates.html to http://www.spaceflight101.com/progress-m-25m-mission-updates.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Progress missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009193814/http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/cargoes/pr1m4.sht to http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/cargoes/pr1m4.sht

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Progress missions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225124431/http://www.astronautix.com/project/mir.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/project/mir.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.comcast.net/~rusaerog/sergeyv/vsa74.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5ilAO9cCm?url=http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proessm1.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proessm1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219131245/http://www.astronautix.com/project/iss.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/project/iss.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081220145739/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/prossmso.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/craft/prossmso.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)