Talk:Marco Polo (spacecraft)

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe: ESA

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by ESA task force.

Merged content from Marco Polo (spacecraft) to here. See Talk:Marco Polo (spacecraft).

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 merge. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that MarcoPolo-R be merged into Marco Polo (spacecraft). The same Marco Polo mission concept was submitted 4 times (M1, M2, M3 and M4) and was rejected each time for the "M" medium-class missions under Europe's "Cosmic Vision" programme. MarcoPolo-2D, as the latest concept was termed, has been culled at the very first stage of the new competition. Updated news at [1]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree There's really no point having a separate articles. Separate sections - yes, but articles? No. SkywalkerPL (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.