Talk:Remote Manipulator System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no reason for this to be under "Canadarm". This is a nickname, not an official name. Just as we don't use acronyms (articles are under their full name), we shouldn't use nicknames either. Therefore, I'm moving this article to Remote Manipulator System Lostchicken 02:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree. The names "Canadarm" (shuttle) and "Canadarm2" (station) are used by NASA[1].
  • While it's true the official name by the maker is "Shuttle Remote Manipulator System", it's normal in wiki to use the commonly understood term.
  • The purpose of wiki is to be *helpful* to people looking up information. It's not designed to help people who seem to already know everything already. --rob 00:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
Articles should be referenced by the official name. Canadarm redirects to Remote Manipulator System, so it is no harder to find than it was when the article resided under that name. Canadarm2 properly redirects to Mobile Servicing System, so it is consistent as well. My main gripe about moving articles is that the history is lost. There should be a formal "rename" command to change the name of an article while preserving the history. This article was moved months ago, so it isn't even an issue at this time. --Dan East 01:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it that whenever Americans feel their pride is being stepped on, they must intervene going beyond convention? Same thing with Aluminium/Aluminum. Aluminium is correct, yet the Americans feel that they should have their way, titling the article Aluminum. Some random idiot mentions that, as Aluminum is more used than Aluminium, not using the American spelling would not be NPOV. Now c'mon you people! Make up your minds!--AtomicCactus 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You forgot about categories. Everybody who knows what a RMS is, also knows what the Canadarm is, but not vice-versa. But, I'm personally leaving it, since it's not a big enough issue to warrant the major step of a move (or worse a counter move).
    • I don't get your comments about when "history is lost". The history of articles, is (normally) maintained, even through multiple moves. A number of articles show long history, including notes on the moves. So, I'm not sure what you're referring to. --rob 02:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs update

  • Most of the information in this article seems to come from a NASA reference manual from 1988, and reads like one. The CSA website says there were in fact 5 Canadarms built, and 4 are still in use, since one was lost in challenger.. but the page hadn't been updated since 2001, i.e. before the columbia explosion. I haven't been able to find how many Canadarms there actually are, and how they differ. Presumably one or more were lost on Columbia, but i haven't even been able to find that. Mlm42 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

who cares what category it is in, the one guy is right, i looked up canadarm and it redirected me to the article called RMS. But sill I think it should be Canadarm, because it was the canadians that developed it and it is a more widely used name than Remote Manipulator system. --69.11.81.236 20:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/m/Talk%7ERemote_Manipulator_System_4cf9.html"