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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG ^talk 01:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Manned mission to Mars → Template:Human missions to Mars – gender neutral. just like the top line of the template and the main article Human mission to Mars (Manned mission to Mars is a redirect) Golan's mom (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). -- Alex^TW 08:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. Gender neutral, same meaning, matches parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe: Which parent article -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Human mission to Mars. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose and move to Template:Mars expeditions - WP:CONCISE and no need to be specist either, you human supremacists. Strongest possible Oppose - this nomination smacks of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and is not based on any evidence or Wikipedia policies. I've put in to reverse the move on the main article. -- Netoholic @ 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  NASA terminology in the recent years have clearly stated that "manned" is outdated and gender neutral language should be used. see Style Guide for NASA History Authors and Editors to quote: "in general, all references to the space program should be non-gender-specific (e.g., human, piloted, unpiloted, robotic, as opposed to manned or unmanned)". Golan's mom (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Per WP:CONSISTENCY with article title. I think it's safe to assume that only humans will be going to Mars in the near future, unless you believe in reptilians._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - "Human missions" is best, until the Romulans show up. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't that still ambiguous since "human missions" means any human-initiated mission, both manned and unmanned? --Netoholic @ 18:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Personally I have always understood "manned" to mean "crewed by people", and as Netoholic points out in the 18:36 post "human missions" is ambiguous. -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I have just checked the Oxford English Dictionary for its meaning of manned as a adjective "Supplied with or guarded by people; having or involving a human operator, pilot, or crew (now esp. in relation to air and space travel)". So my understanding of the word is the same as the OED. using the word manned does not mean "crewed by men" but "crewed by people". I think that the proposer (User:אמא של גולן) has misunderstood the dictionary and common meaning of the word "manned" . -- PBS (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Alternative if there is no consensus for manned then I suggest "Crewed missions to Mars". -- PBS (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support -- If NASA doesn't use "manned missions" in reference to Mars missions, Wikipedia shouldn't either. "Human missions", or "Crewed missions", or whatever NASA and other space agencies use, we should also use. - Penny Richards (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Welcome to NASApedia! No but seriously, we do not and should never submit ourselves to external editorial standards. How about citing one of WIKIPEDIA's actual WP:Core policies or naming conventions? -- Netoholic @ 00:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. We should use gender-neutral language unless we're sure we know what we're doing. Georgia guy (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]