|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved.|
Speedy deletion nomination of StarshipEdit
A tag has been placed on Starship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
- disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
- is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the . PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
An important distinction needs to be made in response to some of your recent edits to Starship (rocket and spacecraft). This spacecraft is not a launch vehicle as the term rocket usually implies. It is strictly a spacecraft. A similar comparison would be the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V rocket. I have found no evidence of plans to launch the Starship into space without being attached to a launch vehicle. Rather, it is strictly intended to operate as a 2nd stage. What they do to test it in the prototype stage is irrelevant. And, while it is true that this spacecraft obtains thrust from rocket engines, this is true of every spacecraft, and labeling it as both a rocket and spacecraft is redundant at best. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Also note that the reference used in the description section, , does not provide sufficient evidence that it is specifically a launch vehicle besides for just being a spacecraft that uses rocket engines. I have edited the sentence accordingly. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 18:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, Puzzledvegetable!
- The noun "rocket" includes a LOT of rocket-engine-powered vehicles that have nothing to do with spaceflight. Also, it is indubitably the case that all 1st stages, 2nd stages, and higher stages for achieving orbital spaceflight, of the chemical-propulsion launch vehicles that are common today, are also rockets. The vast majority of those rockets are not notable in their own right, and would not have a Wikipedia article about them; but some of them do: e.g., the Russian government's Fregat or Briz upper stages, the American government's Centaur or Delta second stages, etc. Of course, none of those second stages ever flew, even in testing, independently of the launch vehicle mission combination they would one day become a part of when they did their "one job" to accelerate a payload to orbital velocity. (there are technical, as well as economic reasons, for not doing this with the typical expendable 2nd-stage rocket designs that have been the only way used during the first six decades since humans came to possess spaceflight technology in 1957.)
- So the new 9-meter SpaceX 2nd stage of their BFR two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle, is truly an unusual beast. It is the 2nd stage of the launch vehicle, and will also be a long-duration spacecraft; both of those plans are in design and under development at present. But because SpaceX is developing this rocket to be fully and rapidly reusable, they are developing it in an entirely new way (methodical flight envelope expansion process). To avoid attempting to execute the "perfect" design, flying the rocket for the first time on an orbital launch and then throwing the vehicle away (as has been done by all manufacturers during the six early decades of spaceflight yada yada), they are working in an entirely new way for (eventual) orbital rockets. They are flying the rocket, by itself, as a VTVL suborbital rocket today! (just like a dozen or so other VTVL rockets of the (mostly) past 20 or so years; there is a decent list of examples here. They will gradually expand the flight envelope of the test vehicles as they have engineering and economic reasons to do so. But it is a rocket already, with first test flight just last month.
- The Starship, really is a "rocket", and a "2nd stage" (and a 2nd stage rocket), and a spacecraft (carrying cargo: satellite payloads or propellant), and a spaceship (when carrying humans for long-duration spaceflight expeditions). It is a really odd and unusual vehicle, unlike what we've seen before. The Space Shuttle was similarly an odd duck as was the Russian Buran and the current US X-37; but none of them are like Starship either. All could only maneuver a little bit (no LARGE propellant tankage was any part of them) and none functioned as a ordinary second stage after separation of a first stage. The Space Shuttle does not include its expendable tankage; that multi-million dollar structure ended up smashed by the atmosphere and in the ocean after each SS flight. Starship is a strange and unusual new rocket, being used in spaceflight, flying suborbitally today, and being designed to be both a 2nd stage and spacecraft. Really weird in these ways. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- While I acknowledge that the Starship is a unique vehicle, I believe still that the use of both "spacecraft" and "rocket", especially in the article's title and in short descriptions on the disambiguation page is redundant. According to rocket "A rocket is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle that obtains thrust from a rocket engine." Thus, a spacecraft of this type is by definition a rocket.
- Besides the official denotation, the word "rocket" often connotes a launch vehicle and is used to differentiate between that and a spacecraft. For example, the Falcon 9 is a rocket, whereas the Dragon is a spacecraft despite the fact that it has rocket engines and has launched independently of a launch vehicle during the testing phase. This is because what is done during testing is irrelevant to the craft's designation. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 13:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- ...and Starship is a very odd duck, and quite unusual in the entire history of spaceflight for six+ decades. It is both a rocket, and spacecraft. There is no other 2nd stage rocket quite like it.
- Notably, in all uses where it is ever "in practice, on a flight/mission" as aspacecraft, it will always have been a second-stage rocket for accelerating the payload to orbital velocity on the way there. The article prose is rather clear on this.
- Moreover, today, as it is flying last month and this and for the foreseeable future, it is only a rocket: a suborbital rocket. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- There may be "no other 2nd stage rocket quite like it", but there's a precedent to a "rocket and spacecraft" combo, and it was called the Space Shuttle. Even weirder, as it was a rocket whose tank was outside the vehicle body… If we add the Soviet Buran spaceplane, that's two more odd ducks, BUT Buran was placed on top of a traditional rocket, the Energia, it had no provisions for orbital-class rocket engines fueled by an external tank, so that Buran was correctly called a "spacecraft" only. We're only having this discussion because once again Elon Musk trolled the world with his "Starship" designation, that forces poor Wikipedians to settle on a "not so odd" disambiguation term. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG talk 23:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please solve the 435 links to the disambiguation page Starship that you have caused with your article move and reworking the redirect to a disambiguation page? Thanks in advance. 09:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, User:The Banner. I gave it a shot, and tried to use those tools on the article banner currently on the Starship page: "The Dab Fix List & Dab Solver " The tools look powerful, but I couldn't get 'em to work super well in the 30 minutes I had just now. Kept getting a repeating Python error msg when I tried to log in to DABsolver. I assume sign-in would make things go faster for me and for fixes. Is that correct?
- Going around the manual, per-article "FIX" links, I was able to get a few changes in, but it seemed to add extra mundane unneccessary manual steps--perhaps cause I'm not "signed in" to DABsolver? I don't know.
- Any advice would be helpful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, JFG. I had starting on fixing these, when some other editor undid the entire move. I don't have the energy to try to push back on it; but would register a view if someone else starts a discussion; otherwise, I'm just letting this one go.
- What I can say is that nearly ten other uses of "Starship" get more daily/monthly hits than the theoretical interstellar spaceship usage, and all of those starship hits collectively (many in entertainment, but also the SpaceX-related ones) get 10-20x the number of daily hits that the interstellar spaceship "Starhip" gets. Seemed a pretty straightforward move, but it created a lot of work with 435 inbound links, etc. So I thought the disambig page was a strong improvement. But... Well. Wikipedia is emergent. N2e (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!Edit
|The Original Barnstar|
|Good day, thank you a lot for mentioning Unistellar on Wikipedia, as a citizen-science startup, it is much appreciated. If you need any kind of information from Unistellar, do not hesitate to contact me.|
- Thanks, Ludovicnac. I found that company an interesting startup with a number of sources in media that supported notability, so decided to create an article for the company. It will be interesting to see if that company can succeed in bringing their product successfully to market. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Re your edit . The date ref  gives some details of the launch and that it is a follow on from ANASIS but the name ANASIS-II isn't given nor does this article say it will be a F9 launch. Hence the SpaceX launch manifest ref in the name section to support the launch payload being called ANASIS-II and it being on a F9. Both references seem needed to give the information. SpaceX launch manifest isn't dated so I can't add that to the ref detail. A date accessed could be added, but I think that can be confusing if date not also given. So not really sure what can be improved or why you added full tag. Perhaps you could explain? crandles (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, crandles. The SpaceX webpage changes frequently. That citation to it merely has a URL, and does not have a date the page data was used to source whatever is being sourced, nor a date from the page (if the webpage has one). A [full citation needed] citation should have all that, in addition to URL, page title, publisher, etc. (some of which is already there). This is especially important for a "Featured list" article, as incomplete citations in the article would get the article taken off of "Featured... " status in not too long. N2e (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I was misled by your choice of which 'update needed' tag you chose to remove as the one at section level applies to the subsections as well as the section lead. All need updating. (Per the talk page, the primary reason for all these tags is so that readers understand the Wikipedia does not report accurately on the position on the ground. I haven't reverted but have removed the (other) redundant tag. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edits to Operation Moonwatch. I like that article but have not been able to improve it much. It is so blatantly plagiarized from some other source, it really needs a lot of help. StarHOG (Talk) 14:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, StarHOG. And yeah, I want to get back to it and see what might be done to improve it. I read the section on the Talk page, and it seems like perhaps the potential COPYVIO evidence is not so strong anymore. ? But I'm not very familiar with the WP:COPYVIO tools, so not sure how to best clean it up. Viz, in order to just copyedit and tell the story, one would need to know which specific sections are the questionable copyvio text. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2019 (UTC)