Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Requested move 12 February 2018

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: no consensus to move to any particular proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster → Tesla Roadster (spacecraft) – Per discussion above, there has been some criticism of the current title, which excessively emphasizes Elon Musk, and doesn't describe what is special about this car. Various titles were proposed, and Tesla Roadster (spacecraft) has gathered more support than others. Let's see if we can achieve consensus. — JFG talk 05:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a car that was turned into a spacecraft… That's the notable thing about it. — JFG talk 05:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Incorrect. It is an unmodified car, launched into space. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
…"launched into space" makes it a spacecraft, albeit admittedly a very crude one. — JFG talk 06:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Just like a hammer tossed into the ocean becomes a "crude" submarine? :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Whatever its design or function, it is an artificial satellite now → Roadster satellite? BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
And my grandma on her wheelchair is a crude automobile. — JFG talk 06:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
LOL! -BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If that hammer were perminantly attached to a propultion system, outfitted with sensors, and returned telemetry and images, sure. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Then you are in the wrong article. The rocket, its systems, and test flight are documented at Falcon Heavy test flight. This article is about a car. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hasn't JPL Horizons or whoever given it an official designation yet, like 2018/TESLA? We could make that the article title. I know it doesn't exactly meet WP:COMMONNAME standards but there is no real common name at the moment, and several different redirects could be made to point here. Just a thought. nagualdesign 05:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the COSPAR database lists this object as "TESLA ROADSTER" (look for International Designator 2018-017A at Celestrak), and the JPL Horizons database[1] lists it as "SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft)" and "Tesla Roadster (AKA: Starman, 2018-017A)". — JFG talk 05:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@JFG, At the top of the JPL Horizons object data page it says "Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)" The "Tesla Roadster (AKA: Starman, 2018-017A)" bit is listing alternative designations. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Right, so we have JPL calling this object alternatively "SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft)", "Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)" and "Tesla Roadster (AKA: Starman, 2018-017A)". Besides, the concise registered name for designator 2018-017A is "Tesla Roadster", so that reinforces the move to Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). — JFG talk 05:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Are NASA and JPL "nobody"? — JFG talk 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Saying that "Tesla Roadster in space (publicity stunt)" is a WP:COMMONNAME makes a mockery of that guideline. Nobody would use this phrase as a title to refer to it. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support; @nagualdesign and Dennis Bratland Actually, NASA JPL refers to it as "Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)" in the Horizon database.[2](Note: you need to change the "target Body" by searching for 'roadster', then generate it) Other sources have caught on to this as well and also refer to it as a spacecraft.[3][4] Boilerplate payloads are often referred to as "spacecraft" (see our article on the topic). If NASA decided to call it a spacecraft, that is good enough for me. However, "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster" probably is the WP:COMMONNAME, excess emphasis or not. My issue with the current title is that it is not specific enough, Musk definitely owns other Tesla roadsters, although none is likely to ever be this notable (unless he launches one into the sun on the BFR). We could go for "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)", but probably fails WP:CONCISE. Tesla Roadster in space and other proposed titles in the previous discussion section are made up (not used as a title by anyone) and don't improve on the current title in any way. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, I've just done a search of JPL Horizons and they're calling it SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft). I'm not sure whether that's an official designation. nagualdesign 05:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
​Generate the object data page to see the updated title. Although "SpaceX Roadster" is probably a concise and conflict free way to end this discussion without pulling all our hair out. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, you're right, it does change to Tesla Roadster (spacecraft) when you click on Generate Ephemeris. We should probably go with whichever is the official designation, but if it's a choice of the two I prefer SpaceX, since it's more unambiguous. nagualdesign 05:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with "SpaceX Roadster". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point about what's likely coming. Tesla space ad (2018) might be wise, to distinguish it from future publicity stunts. If official bureaucratic documents determined article titles, then Bill Clinton would be named William Jefferson Clinton. What is consensus on what this thing is? A car? A spaceship? Art? Space Junk? Consensus is that it is a piece of media, a marketing device, a publicity stunt. It's a way of selling Tesla cars and of making a statement about Musk's brand. History will remember it as setting a great precedent in the field of marketing, not spaceflight. The Falcon Heavy itself is a whole other thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
By that argument, should we move The Lego Batman Movie→Lego Batman (104-minute toy commercial)? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Interesting perspective, since it has indeed been confirmed that the car remained attached to the second stage. Now, do you consider the second stage itself a spacecraft? It has propulsion, attitude control, instrumentation and telemetry, much more of a spacecraft than the raw car. Views from the car-mounted cameras were surely transmitted to Earth by the second stage, and they were "stsged" to show a slowly-rotating car with Earth in the background thanks to the second stage's attitude control system. I'd say that the combo "Roadster + second stage" is a spacecraft, and NASA / JPL / COSPAR have named it as such. — JFG talk 23:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I concur. The whole shebang constitutes a spacecraft. We ought to be careful not to imply that the car itself is any sort of spacecraft or probe though. nagualdesign 23:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Really? We have hundreds of articles named "Foobar (spacecraft)", and very few of them refer to spacecraft classes. Curious about what makes you perceive it this way. — JFG talk 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The car itself is not a spacecraft. nagualdesign 03:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is not a spacecraft. Felicia (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Project Echo satellite was just a mylar balloon. I think it's prigish to be so insistent on such a fine point as to what is and isn't a "spacecraft". HOWEVER, some people are really really really opposed to saying "spacecraft" here. That makes it impossible in all practically to call it that in the title. To me, it's got cameras on it and it sent pictures back, so it's fine to call it "spacecraft". But it's politically impossible, so here in WP that's makes it not fine (which is fine :-) ). 98.216.245.29 (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, as per my explanation below (term used officially by JPL NASA). And I know the discussion is not over, but as discussed and consensus above, please dropped the Elon Musk reference in the title asap.--Mariordo (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It was Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster before it was sent up into space and it still is. Until a new common name appears, we should not create nor endorse one here. Wikipedia's naming conventions should follow the trends not create nor even guide them. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternatives

"SpaceX Roadster"

Okay, sorry to change course, but who'd like to rename the article to SpaceX Roadster? NASA/JPL use the designations SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) and Tesla Roadster (spacecraft), but whether it's actually a spacecraft is debatable. Drop the (spacecraft) and you're left with SpaceX Roadster or Tesla Roadster, and the latter is obviously unusable here.

Such things are explained in the article. There's no need to have a long-winded title, and you can create as many redirects as you wish. The point is for readers to be able to find the article easily enough, and to know they're in the right place when they get here. If SpaceX did make roadsters it would be confusing, but they don't. nagualdesign 06:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point. It suggests a product by SpaceX. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Someone looking for information about this thing wouldn't get here and then think, "Huh? SpaceX make cars now?!" nagualdesign 06:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, other than NASA, the people who give these things their official titles. nagualdesign 06:16, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
NASA/JPL also call it a spacecraft. — JFG talk 06:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be okay calling it SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft), following NASA/JPL's lead, but we can drop the (spacecraft) part if that's a bone of contention. nagualdesign 06:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"Tesla Roadster in space"

Another alternative: Tesla Roadster in space or Roadster in space

There is no name commonly used by mainstream sources. -- GreenC 06:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The event does not have a name, THAT is the reason for this conversation. We are looking for a title. Roadster in space is a very accurate and descriptive title. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@GreenC, Based on the liked search results above, the commonname is actually probably "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster", it just isn't very WP:PRECISE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. And Tesla Roadster in space sounds more like a sentence fragment than an article title to me. nagualdesign 06:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I've seen truly long titles, but this one is 3 words: Roadster in space. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a little more titular (giggles) but not particularly precise. nagualdesign 06:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Not precise? How many Roadsters are there in space that now we have to differentiate them?  :-) BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair point. Although there are 3 Lunar Roving Vehicles that are open-top two-seaters. nagualdesign 06:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, why not err with 4 words (not bad) than miss common usage. -- GreenC
WP:TOOSOON then. -- Netoholic @ 06:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
That policy doesn't really have any relevance in this discussion. I'm a bit confused. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's spaceflight naming guidelines WP:SPACENAME (and likely JPL's) were written before a private company was able to launch non-spacecraft loads to space. We don't have to bend reality to our guidelines, but adapt the guidelines to the technological developments. Even Musk calls the car in space "an absurdity", so Wikipedia calling it a "spacecraft" is absolutely not acceptable. It is a matter of intellectual honesty and technological accuracy. I'll support the current title, or any other reasonable title not using that word. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster (Falcon Heavy payload)

A bit boring perhaps, but if we can't agree on any other disambiguator, it will do. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 10:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, Tesla Roadster (payload) is all what is required for disambiguation, or perhaps Tesla Roadster (space payload) to help readers know that they have arrived at the correct place. —Sladen (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Sladen, I disagree. To a layperson (payload) alone is not a clear enough term as it is a reasonably technical one (i.e. not WP:PRECISE enough). "(Falcon Heavy payload)" is WP:PRECISE if not particularly WP:CONCISE. I'd prefer other titles such as "SpaceX Roadster", but this is probably better than the current title on the precision scale, and about the same on the concise scale. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Insertcleverphrasehere, indeed, hence why the sentence continues, concluding with the more practical suggestion of Tesla Roadster (space payload). —Sladen (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
​Not a big fan of 'space' in disambiguators, as it is a word with multiple other common meanings. Perhaps "(spaceflight payload)" but then we are not concise at all anyway and we might as well just go with "(spaceflight)" at that point. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
A slight tweak: Tesla Roadster (satellite). Although it is not a spacecraft, it is now an artificial satellite. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:SPACENAME, "satellite" only refers to object in geocentric orbit. The Roasder is in heliocentric orbit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded, see above. "Tesla Roadster (satellite)" was already tested and comments concluded use of "satellite" was likely to be confusing. —Sladen (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
So, if it's heliocentric, it's a space probe... I'm happy with the current title. It's well known that the Tesla launched was Elon's personal Tesla. In fact, I'd say that's part of the notability. If it had been less personal, the headline would have been less catchy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I read GreenC's comment that "Falcon Heavy" isn't commonly known and I agree. That can be worked on.
Tesla Roadster (test rocket payload)?
Tesla Roadster (rocket payload)?
Tesla Roadster (test rocket dummy payload)?
Tesla Roadster (rocket dummy payload)?
98.216.245.29 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Still a reductionist focus on what the thing is made up of rather than what it is, and why we have an article about this particular piece of dead weight, and not all the other boilerplate that was shot into space, and forgotten. Anything without Elon Musk in the title is an improvement, but none of the variations of Tesla Roadster ( * payload) are any better or worse than any other. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not an improvement. -- Netoholic @ 17:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Fairly Strongly I'm trying to think what I'll search for in 5 years when I want to retrieve information about this launch. I'll remember TESLA, so "Tesla Roadster (Falcon Heavy payload)" should pop up on the disambiguation page. There should also be cross-references to STARMAN (also a footnote on the David Bowie page?), SPACECRAFT, and whatever else I may have forgotten. Paulmmn (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster (space)

No support for good reasons close by nom
Bold SNOW close by nom. No traction. Reduce RM noise. The word "space" has other meanings and not a good choice for a dab

The following discussion 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.

Building on the above conversation: It uses parenthetical disambiguation because there is already another article named Tesla Roadster. It fit's into the current naming schemes while including a precise word that makes it immediately recognizable what it refers to. It is 3 words and is precise. It leaves open the possibility of a general article about Tesla Roadster's in space should another be launched. -- GreenC 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla-themed open space / playground / sponsored venue? —Sladen (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the suggestions above and beyond the combination "Tesla Roadster (space payload), would be likely be fractionally more accessible. —Sladen (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -an improvement over names that suggest the car is a spacecraft. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose ​ Though technically allowable as a "subject or context" disambiguator (per WP:NCDAB), it sounds awkward because the word "space" has multiple other common meanings. I'd probably support "(spaceflight)" as a subject or context parenthetical though, per other examples like Boilerplate (spaceflight). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This is a misunderstanding of parenthetical disambiguation: the Roadster is not a space, it is in space. — JFG talk 03:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Does it have to "a" something vs a word that associates it for common recognition? I can see "space" not being defined enough though. -- GreenC 05:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
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.

Tesla Roadster (boilerplate)

This proposal didn't get any traction. (or should I say propulsion?) — JFG talk 11:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Boldly closing per WP:SNOW, unanimous opposition and clearly not going to happen, feel free to revert if you have a 'support' !vote you want to add though. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Not stranger than a reputable encyclopedia describing a car as a "spacecraft". The suggestion is intellectually honest and extremely accurate terminology. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
BatteryIncluded A car with a rocket engine attached that provides propulsion and attitude control, and with instrumentation and capable of transmitting images and data (even if only for a limited time frame). Sounds like a spacecraft to me personally. It would be good to have ironclad confirmation of non-separation, as we would then be able to decide whether this article is meant to be about the car itself (arguably not a spacecraft except by the loosest possible terms), or about the space object (second stage+car is clearly a spacecraft). Currently the article doesn't make this distinction clear, because the sources are not 100% clear about non-separation, even if it is highly implied by several, and speculated by some. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The rocket carried a payload (a car), not the other way around. You can state in the article that the car (which is the primary subject of this article) remains attached to the "spacecraft". BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
​ Arguably, though if they are attached as one object one could also argue that the rocket is the car's external space propulsion system (making it a spacecraft by any definition), also, many spacecraft have no proportion system at all and are simply thrown on a ballistic trajectory. In any case, I don't expect that 'spacecraft' is going to get accepted by consensus and if we decided to go with the article topic being the space object (car+rocket upper stage) then "SpaceX Roadster" is probably the most appropriate title anyway. If we decide that this article is just about the car, then the current title or one of the "Tesla Roadster (disambiguation)" variants is probably the most appropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the linked article begins "A boilerplate spacecraft … is a … payload", so based on that "payload" is the accessible everyday disambiguation word to focus on. —Sladen (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Be careful with those ellipsis. The full quote from the article is "A boilerplate spacecraft, also known as a mass simulator, is a nonfunctional craft or payload that is used to test various configurations and basic size, load, and handling characteristics of rocket launch vehicles." In context, a boilerplate is a payload of the launch vehicle. But that's also true of a fully functional spacecraft. If we use "payload" in this case, it would be inconsistent with the disambiguation of other payloads (as "spacecraft.") Fcrary (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Fcrary, slightly confused. Are we talking about Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster car, which was loaded as a payload onto a rocket, and which has been referred to as a payload since the very first announcement: "Payload will be [Elon Musk's] midnight cherry Tesla Roadster playing Space Oddity. …"[5]. —Sladen (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I had no idea what a boilerplate was a week ago. The title should bring instant recognition to the widest audience. 'Space' or 'Musk' are about the only 1-word ways to do it. This is supported by sourcing which almost uniformly mention Musk and or/space (plus Tesla). The official specialist sources are interesting but fail common recognition. -- GreenC 00:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
One reason nobody has ever heard of boilerplate is that we don't normally write separate articles about test launch boilerplate. The reason this topic is the exception is the social symbolism attached to the particular object that was used. It's a notable piece of boilerplate because it is a car, and a specific brand of car, specifically one of those cars owned by the CEO of the car and the rocket company. In short, the only reason this article exists at all is the emotions and ideas communicated to the public because of the very specific object that was used as boilerplate. The object is thus a means of communications, that is, a medium. It was medium of communication from a corporation to the public. Our name for that is an "advertisement" or a "publicity stunt". The launch and accompanying multimedia show was a publicity stunt, the thing orbiting out there is an ad. That's what this is all about. Take away what this medium of communication says to the public, and you have a lump of mass of no more notability than any of the other blocks of concrete and steel that have been used for this purpose in the past. Giving it a literalist name like a car or spacecraft or boilerplate is like calling Fountain (Duchamp) a toilet rather than recognizing it's a piece of art. Most of these article titles seem to be intentionally obtuse about what this thing actually is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I can safely speak on behalf of all the other editors here by saying we're definitely not going to rename the article Tesla Roadster in space (publicity stunt), Tesla space ad (2018) or anything of that ilk, so I suggest you drop that particular stick. I'm glad that you (and others) are willing to avoid playing into SpaceX's hands, and try to maintain WP:NPOV, but your constant disparaging of their achievement is swinging the other way. nagualdesign 02:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's just your own prejudices that make you accuse me of disparaging anything. The rocket launch itself is a great achievement that I have not disparaged in any way -- I've only pointed out when editors here have applied accolades for the rocket launch to the use of a car as ballast. They are, sadly, two different articles. And I have underscored the overwhelming majority of reputable sources that express nothing but admiration for Musk's brilliant marketing. You might personally feel it's disparaging to call shooting a car into space an ad or a marketing campaign or a publicity stunt, but that's a prejudice you have, not something you're getting from me. It's extremely good news for Tesla and SpaceX that Musk is so talented at marketing and branding. Musk is a remarkable individual, but editors who treat him as infallible and near-divine are not contributing to making any article better. As far as you speaking for other editors, well, the less said about that the better. Such a speaker role is not part of any consensus building process, and trying to drive other editors away is the kind of policy violation that can lead to serious consequences. You might think a number of editors agree with you about this or that, but that doesn't mean you own the article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, I said I think I can safely speak on behalf of all the other editors here on this particular issue. That is a fact – I do think that. And I based that opinion on the responses you've been getting (or lack thereof). But since you're not happy I'll withdraw my comment and speak only for myself, and let all the other editors, one at a time, tell you to give it a rest. nagualdesign 04:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Could you please discuss contributors elsewhere, and here focus on article content? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about content. You have suggested several times what you think the article title should be and I said we're definitely not going to rename the article Tesla Roadster in space (publicity stunt), Tesla space ad (2018) or anything of that ilk, and I suggested you drop that particular stick. Then you made some comments about my "prejudices". To be clear, I'm making what I believe to be a fair assessment, and has nothing to do with prejudice. Let me put it this way, nobody agrees with the article titles you've suggested and your diatribes are not helpful. If you like you can add those suggestions to the list of alternatives below, we can all post Oppose, and then perhaps you'll get the message. I'm not trying to drive you away, I'm just saying that on that particular issue you're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not sure how I could have made that any clearer. nagualdesign 05:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
For the second time, please stop. If you want to talk about me, find an appropriate venue to talk about me. "I was just saying what I think" is not an excuse for ownership of articles, harassment, personal attacks, or constant off-topic digressions. There is no special category of "just what I think" where what you post here is held to a lesser standard. I keep posting source after source that describes this as a marketing coup and lauds Musk's vision, and you reply by citing no sources at all, accusing me of disparaging the subject, and favoring alternatives that are based on few or no sources, other than bureaucratic or technical specialists who have no influence at all on what could be called a common name. How to make yourself clearer? Don't. Don't stray off topic. Post something productive, something based on sources. Cite evidence of what the common name for this thing is. Read WP:COMMONNAME. That section says to rely on reliable sources five times. This is about sources. Sources are everything here. You don't need to make your comments about me more clear because you don't need to be making comments about me at all. Find some sources and post about that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)​This is... a fairly good set of points (especially the bit about Fountain (Duchamp)). Am I right in thinking that you are saying that we should also describe it as essentially an 'art piece' or an example of 'performance art'? Others have already interpreted it like that[6], and even Elon Musk himself described it as "the most epic brilliant piece of performance art in world history."[7]. Taken this way, on some level "boilerplate" and "spacecraft" might not be the best choices. An interesting interpretation, I'll have to think on it. I agree that Tesla space ad (2018) is not going to happen, but it lends some credence to avoiding a title choice such as '(boilerplate)'. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not art. We don't call the messages companies broadcast 'art', although some may have artistic merit. It's marketing. Branding. A publicity stunt. An advertisement. That's what sources say it is. Symbol (WaPo). Stunt (AP/NYT). World's best car commercial (Business Insider). Executing a vision. Demonstrating values (Ad Age) A nice bit of cross-promotion (The Economist) A PR stunt (BBC). Stunt. Ad. Message. Symbol. Nobody calls it a "satellite" or a "spacecraft". The common name policy guides us to title articles in accordance with what things are actually called, not some official designation or some reductionist, literal description, like calling the Venus de Milo a piece of marble. The level of consensus among the top-tier sources is very high. To find dissent you have to dig down into lesser news blogs and niche publications. The mainstream name for this thing is a publicity stunt, or a marketing campaign, or an ad. Any of those terms. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Opposed The article on Boilerplate describes a boilerplate as a sort of "nonfunctional spacecraft". So using boilerplate instead of spacecraft is inconsistent. I also don't think it's the sort of disambiguation most readers would find intuitive. If we don't want to use (spacecraft), could we use (spaceflight) or (space)? And, as a note on what constitutes a spacecraft, what about Echo 1? It was just a 100-foot diameter mylar balloon, but it's generally called a spacecraft (including by Wikipedia, since that's the sort of infobox the article has...) Fcrary (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Boilerplate is too obscure a term for disambiguation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Although it's arguably accurate, boilerplate isn't a very common term. nagualdesign 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
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.

Orbital Tesla Roadster

Why not throw in one more alternative title? Let's try Orbital Tesla Roadster ftw. Three words, not a spacecraft, it's in orbit, matches JPL designation, no Musk cult… What's not to like? — JFG talk 02:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging every commenter so far. @Ahecht, BatteryIncluded, Bellezzasolo, Dennis Bratland, Fcrary, Frmorrison, GreenC, Insertcleverphrasehere, Nagualdesig, Netoholic, Power~enwiki, Rosbif73, SarekOfVulcan, Sladen, WolreChris, and Zxcvbnmn: How do you like this one? — JFG talk 02:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It certainly would! nagualdesign 03:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
No sourcing, this is simply a descriptive title, in an effort to find something consensual and precise enough. WP:ATDAB policy says: 4. Descriptive title: where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles. Since we can't find an agreement on policy options #1 to #3 (natural, comma or parenthetical disambiguation), and there is not much love for the current title either, perhaps getting creative with policy option #4 would help. — JFG talk 03:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@JFG, I don't think we should quite give up on the idea of a possible natural dab (SpaceX Roadster) or parenthetical dab (quite a few good options, some of which have not been proposed yet). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Not looking for a name that does not exist, but a title. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster (Starman, 2018-017A)

NASA database is not yet up to date, only lists objects up to designation 2018-015xx, but as per JPL official object data page here, the orbiting payload was named Tesla Roadster (Starman, 2018-017A) or Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). These is the official name astronomers are using to follow the object (here, here, here, etc). The "Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)" name has been already suggested as title (which now it seems more appropriate to me), but no consensus was reached with that name. Therefore, I proposed to use the formal astronomical designation used elsewhere in Wikipedia. For example, near-Earth asteroid that caused a brief period of concern in 2004 is called 99942 Apophis; another asteroid that passed near Earth in 2009 is called 2009 DD45; 2008 TC3 entered Earth atmosphere in 2008; etc. But to keep the discussion objective and technical, this is the list of artificial objects in heliocentric orbit, where 2018-017A belongs.--Mariordo (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't necessarily use official names, but there's still time for you to support Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). — JFG talk 04:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The parentheses here at the listing are alternative names I believe. With starman referring to the dummy, and the number designation referring to the 17th object of the year (presumably). The entire line is not a particularly good title for the wikipedia article, essentially being the main name and two alternative names that uses way more characters than it needs. It possibly could work without "starman" bit, and just using its official number designation as a space object as the disambiguator. I'd weakly support "Tesla Roadster (2018-017A)" although it isn't necessarily something that the average person is going to recognise. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I support both, Tesla Roadster (2018-017A) or Tesla Roadster (spacecraft).--Mariordo (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster (spaceflight)

Pings: @Ahecht, BatteryIncluded, Bellezzasolo, Dennis Bratland, Fcrary, Frmorrison, GreenC, Nagualdesig, Netoholic, Power~enwiki, Rosbif73, SarekOfVulcan, Sladen, WolreChris, Zxcvbnmn, and JFG: — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per User:Insertcleverphrasehere. I can still live with the current Musk title, which actually is shorter (26 char) than this proposal (28 char), though has fewer words and isn't a phrase to its advantage. -- GreenC 05:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral I can live with this title, although I dare say Elon will be launching his (next gen) roadster to Mars when he finally despairs of this planet and emigrates... but Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster is just as ambiguous in that regard. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 06:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, think everyone is worn down. This is one of the first proposals that has not immediately attracted lots of opposes— 185.146.122.109/Insertcleverphrasehere/GreenC, would you (collectively) be willing to put together a well-prepared joint proposal for a rename in a couple of weeks? Ideally this should clearly make the case vs. the status quo, and with all the information needed to evaluate the proposal together in a one place (eg. examples of usage, etc)? —Sladen (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll put something together at some point. I was not actually intending to bring this option up as a separate proposal, as I could see that people were flagging. Agreed that the discussion has worn itself out at this point. I don't mind revisiting this one later if the discussion gets closed. The current title isn't in dire need of being changed immediately and there is WP:NODEADLINE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 11:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Motion to close RM

This seems to be going in too many directions, and now participants are being pinged every few hours to take a look at every new idea. This is essentially a brainstorming session, which I encourage, but needs to happen outside of a RM move discussion. Let's try this again in a couple weeks when hopefully the field of choices can at least be narrowed down. -- Netoholic @ 05:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree. I suspect the reason the article title is so contentious is that the justification for even having a separate article from Falcon Heavy test flight is shaky and controversial. One of the ways you can be sure there is a need for an article to exist is that the title is obvious to almost everyone. I suspect in a few weeks a merge discussion will happen again, and it will have a clear consensus, unlike any potential RM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree in principle, as the original topic proposed has clearly resulted in No Consensus. I also apologise for sending out the second mass ping if I annoyed you, but the genie is out of the bottle now. Leaving it open might result in more people coming over from WP:RM to join the "brainstorming session" though, and there are still a couple of promising candidates open for discussion, so I'd suggest leaving it open at least for another half day or so for those that have been pinged (for better or worse) to have their say if they want to. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Making progress. Good discussions. -- GreenC 06:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to have a moratorium on opening move/merge requests for fortnight. Perhaps useful to close/withdraw all of the requests, dedicate that Talk page space to discussing content, and from those edits see if an obvious alternative/better/acceptable title appears in that time (ie. title follows content). Then it would be good to see a multi-editor proposal at the beginning of April. —Sladen (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Have removed the template from the top of the main page Special:Diff/825432263. Feel free to revert, and/or restore with update to one of the (several) later proposals. —Sladen (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It's only been 24 hours… The RM has clarified a lot of positions, and structured alternative titles better than a free-flow discussion. Now that the "regulars" have spoken and are tired, the request should remain active for the normal 7 days, so that less-involved Wikipedians can read the arguments and have their say. I will restore the notice, whose purpose it is precisely to attract lay readers to the discussion. Remember that the encyclopedia is ultimately written for them. — JFG talk 11:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
JFG, Thank you! —Sladen (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, the RMCD bot has restored the notice already. Let it run its course. — JFG talk 11:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed! :) —Sladen (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we can safely call it as no consensus on all fronts at this point. There are a couple other names that I think might work (such as "Midnight cherry Tesla Roadster"), but I think the time has passed for adding more options to this RM. Maybe in a couple weeks we can try again if any obvious name has surfaced. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Miley Cyrus' Tesla Roadster

Appears to be frequented by Miley Cyrus in the music video at [8], and behind the scenes at [9]. Now, just to find a cite… —Sladen (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Good luck :") You know this article has had a lot of editor attention and it's the better for it. But I'm disappointed in the page view counts. It had a steep and rapid curve up and down it's only getting a few thousand views a day from peak of 90k the day of launch. I suspect many people don't consider Wikipedia has an article on this topic. A Google search of "roadster space" Wikipedia doesn't show up on the front page. Maybe a lack of common name is contributing to search obscurity. -- GreenC 16:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
If only the article were named something like "Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)" so that it would show up in searches for "roasdster space"... (just give me a second to re-close this worm can) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This may or may not help. Often Google seems to wait until the WP:LEAD is stabilised—so give it a month or so, and see what happens. —Sladen (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I just picked "roadster space" randomly I could have picked "roadster musk" - in this case it's #1 on Google. I think those two terms (space or musk) will be the most common right now, it would be leap to call it a spacecraft. Since space is not specific enough, I still support including Musk's name. By "commoname" I was referring to the outside world, not our internal naming. -- GreenC 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Articles that simply rehash the same information as the official website don’t attract much interest. People appreciate Wikipedia because it brings together on one page things you aren’t going to see elsewhere. Currently you have to read half this article before you encounter anything but a paraphrase of the press kit, or any lightweight news article. Writing an article with SEO in mind or competing with news media is self-defeating. This is why this article needs to look past the press releases and non-value-adding websites like The Verge or TechCrunch, and elevate content from more prestigious media to the lead and top sections of the article. Readers would be presented with depth and analysis, not the same clickbait all those low grade sources have. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard Branson interview

Is it worth adding anything to the article from this interview: Richard Branson is 'a little jealous' of Musk...? SpaceX and Virgin Galactic will probably be direct competitors in the upcoming years. nagualdesign 04:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe in the Falcon rocket family article, not in this one. BatteryIncluded (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight in "Art" Subsection?

Does the opinion of one Australian archaeologist need almost as much "airtime" in the article as the entirety of the "Marketing" subsection that has many times as many citations and points of view?

96.54.135.148 (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely a WP:WEIGHT issue here. Feel free to shorten the text, especially long-winded quotes. — JFG talk 17:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Shorten, but don't remove. Would generally expect fractionally more weight, as Alice Gorman appears to be deemed sufficiently notable to have their own article. —Sladen (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I've been saying that. You could also expand detail on the coverage about the marketing stunt, balancing it that way without having to chop off a lot of the Art content. With these other things like the space junk stuff and the art stuff, you're scraping each source to come up with a few sentences and avoid close paraphrasing. With marketing, there is a rich supply of source material, with multiple sources saying the same things in multiple ways, and sources considering the marketing purpose from different angles. Some reflect on how it affects the public perception of private space ventures, others how it helps sell Tesla cars, others on how it affects Tesla's nervous investors, and others consider how it influences the whole marketing and adverting sector.

The PR stunt aspect should also be re-balanced by moving mention of it higher in the article. Delete the words "an art object, or as contributing to space debris" from the lead, and add detail to the marketing stunt sentence, since that is the main interpretation by mainstream sources. The Background section only gives SpaceX's official reasons for using a car, without mentioning at all the widespread belief by our best sources that it's a PR stunt.

It isn't necessary to delete well-sourced content in the Art section, even if it is a minor point of wive, if we first give sufficient space and sufficient prominence to the main point of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Dennis Bratland}}. This is talking about the art section. Please propose concrete wording + citations, so that any expansion of the Marketing section can be considered by other editors. —Sladen (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Dennis Bratland, there is plenty on the PR aspect of the launch, and I don't think it needs expansion as all major viewpoints seem covered. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a difference between saying all major viewpoints are covered and saying all major viewpoints have been given due weight. Three of us have agreed with the IP that the proportion given to the lone individual who blogged that it was art is disproportionate. I'd go so far as to say that one lone blogger constitutes WP:FRINGE and should be excluded entirely, but since several editors seem to think it belongs, the least we could do now is improve the proportios of the coverage as required by the WP:UNDUE policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The "blogger" is a notable academic, so her writings are relevant. Second, it is not fringe that some people see art in this, yourself added a similar reference from the Verge. Third, this article will not mention PR as the sole and only public reaction. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
I won't contest keeping the art stuff, even if I do think it's fringe. We should at least improve the balance. Nobody proposed mentioning PR as sole public reaction. The worries about space junk and collisions are significant enough to include in the article; they are more than fringe. Didn't you and I discuss that at great length? I seem to remember a very long debate in which I tried to explain that we should include points of view that you and I know are in error if they have significant points of view saying them. I thought we had settled that.

There's a big difference between being more than just fringe, and being significant enough to mention in the lead. An article intro is supposed to summarize the most significant facts in an article, not every single minor fact as well. It's one of the best tools for achieving neutral weight balance.

Mentioning marketing, art, and space debris in the lead in the same breath creates the false impression that they are equal proportions of the public reaction, when in fact none, or perhaps one, of the major mainstream media sources even mentioned space junk at all, and then only in passing. While the marketing aspect was nearly-universally mentioned in the first tier mainstream media, and was given in-depth articles about nothing but marketing in AdAge and AdWeek. In terms of quantity of sources, marketing should get far more weight, and in terms of quality it should get far more, since the space debris topic only appears in second-tier media. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: Discussion would be more productive if you actually suggested some concrete prose for the article, instead of explaining all the reasons you feel text should be changed. Sure, we all want to improve the text, and we are happy to discuss, so please jump in and suggest the actual content you'd like to see in the article. — JFG talk 23:05, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I quoted the exact words I think should be removed from the lead, but that's not concrete enough for you? I have trouble believing that. I described four areas where the marketing content could be expanded, 1) public perception of private space ventures, 2) how it helps sell Tesla cars 3) how it affects Tesla's nervous investors, and 4) influences the whole marketing and adverting sector. That is sufficiently concrete for anyone to decide whether or not it's a good idea to expand that content to address the undue weight problem. Nobody has said anything about raising the prominence of the content related to marketing or PR. It's safe to infer that changes along those lines will be quickly reverted, and the bottom of the article miscellaneous "dumping ground" format will remain. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I know you are suggesting themes that should be expanded. Fine, now what do you propose to write? And supported by which sources? — JFG talk 00:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I've linked to quite a few sources already, with the specific content I mentioned in the four areas I outlined. It sounds like we've reached the stone wall again. I would expect that you're going to continue to see complaints about undue weight, such as this thread started by the IP editor above, until the gatekeepers of this article agree to make changes in how the material is presented. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Dennis' Translation: "Article HAS to be all about marketing for Tesla. You choose the words; do as I think." BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
That’s the second straw man today. First you said I wanted to delete all points of view except one, now you accuse me of wanting to change the entire topic of the article. Instead of obvious irrelevancies, could you contribute to the question of whether or not the three parts of the reactions section should be presented with equal weight, or if the article should show, in both form and content that they are not equal? Do you think the kinds of sources that see this as marketing are greater in stature and are more mainstream than those in the other sections? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully any editor with an idea can share it in words. —Sladen (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: I'm trying to help. You wrote I've linked to quite a few sources already, with the specific content I mentioned in the four areas I outlined. Well, there's been so much discussion in the immediate aftermath of the launch that your suggestions have probably been forgotten or blurred among other comments (I for one, did forget what you precisely suggest, although I understand very well in what areas you are suggesting changes). So, for the benefit of all of us as fellow editors, could you please re-state a concise proposal of what you'd like to add, and which sources are backing it? If you don't feel comfortable suggesting exact prose, that's fine, just put it in your own words and the collective process will help distill things for the benefit of our readers. — JFG talk 09:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not seeking help. IP 96.54.135.148, Sladen, yourself, and I all began this thread agreeing that the article has an undue weight problem that should be addressed. If you're in search of a useful task, and if your first concern is our readers, this NPOV undue weight issue is ready and waiting. I've expressed my opinions on how to approach the problem, but don't let what I've said stop you from whatever solution you prefer. I've been asked to propose specific text to add to the article five times on this one issue. I've explained -- not quite five times, maybe 3-ish times -- why I don't believe that is a good idea or a good use of my time. It's clear we disagree on that point. A sixth request is probably not a good use of your time, and others who are using this talk page to discuss how to improve the article probably don't wish to read you re-posting your reasons for wanting a proposal from me and my reasons for not doing so. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Back to regular editing, no worries. — JFG talk 11:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Trajectory in sky

File:Tesla roadster skypath Feb 2018.gif
Compare two observed motions to full trajectory in green

I saw great photos from Chile of the Tesla's path: Feb 11 and Feb 19 with globular cluster NGC 5694. I compared it to the JPL-Sol-7 trajectory, with geocentric and topocentric coordinates for the observatory, and it matches well. More interestingly, I had NO IDEA parallax from the earth's rotation would dominate the motion, so like 90% of the motion seen is parallax, 10% angular velocity from its motion around the sun. Partly this happens I think because most of its real motion is radial away from the earth now, and it just passed a stationary point, going into retrograde as the earth passes it up. Anyway, maybe when Chilescope finishes their observations, perhaps they'll allow a wikipedia upload of their beautiful view! Tom Ruen (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Tomruen, can the raw images be uploaded? This flickering GIF is a bit too loud/fast to add straight to the article. —Sladen (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I've aligned the frames and reduced the frame rate. Is that any better? nagualdesign 00:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Locomotive shed highlighted on an old drawing showing the factory from the air. The locomotive shed is at very left edge, which is the north end of the factory
Locomotive shed
Engraving showing narrow gauge tracks and small locomotive shed c.1925 … *(as example of overlay)
(edit conflict) We could probably add one of the frames as a static image, probably the one with the path in green. Either way, it should be so that the image supports the text/prose, not the other way around. We can also do the annotations separately as an overlay so that the original image is kept "clean"—assuming that Tomruen can help us get access to these. —Sladen (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Joe for the cleanup. I did it quick. Sladen, I didn't ask permission for the image(s) for an article. The car is still moving through the star field in the coming days, so I'm hoping they'll add some more images. I will try to contact the astonomer and ask about permission to share on this article. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Tomruen, regarding "I didn't ask permission for the image(s)"—the upload say that this was your own work. Is that not the case? —Sladen (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
My work was the orbital overlay. (The "Annotated image" looks helpful) Since it was deleted, here's an external reference. My intention was just to show the existence, rather than to promote it on the article now. [10] Tom Ruen (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you upload the bit that is solely your own work. Even without the background starfield, the parallax trajectory is useful to illustrate. We can include that fairly easily I think. —Sladen (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I definitely can, but it is dependent upon the viewing location. I could pick any lat/long. The primary value to me in showing a simulated trajectory is to extend a real set of observation tracks. I suppose I could show a set of tracks from different locations? Tom Ruen (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Currently the image we have is from Dubbo, so might as well use that for the moment. —Sladen (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that would work, if I can figure out the scale (if enough brighter stars can be identified), I can show where it is in a larger field of stars. .... There's not much there to work with, too small of a field, and no stars brighter than 10 or so to help orient its motion to anything. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably it would be worthy to have a section (or Observations does that I guess) that documents professional astronomers who are tracking the car, if we can find solid source articles or papers on it. Or like this tweet showing the spectral colors of the car is different than asteroids. [11] Tom Ruen (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

POV forking reactions into media section

See WP:CSECTION.

It's clear from Musk's words and actions with both the car and the wheel of cheese that he is giving careful consideration to how all of this plays in the media, and he is adjusting the timing and tone of every part to manage the PR. He consciously managed the content of the headlines about the SpaceX COTS Demo Flight 1, because he wanted them to be about the launch. As soon as that news cycle was complete and the desired headlines appeared, then he revealed the wheel of cheese payload and the Monty Python jokes and such, and kicked off another cycle of positive news coverage. Masterful. Props to Musk.

The thing to realize is that the car and the cheese are media. The car is a press release. The cheese is a press release. The ballast could have been anything but by making it these specific objects, they are being put to double use as a "means of mass communication", which is the definition of "media". So when we put Media off at the bottom of the article, and only include non-SpaceX, non-Musk media, we have a WP:POVFORK. If your POV is from the company, your opinions go up here prominently, while everyone representing any other point of view goes down in this ghetto at the bottom of an article.

In articles about books and movies, the convention is to describe the characters and plot at the top, and at the bottom describe the critics reviews and box office numbers. That's fine; it would be confusing to interject commentary within the plot summary. But for any other kind of article, it's almost always best to stick to both/all points of view for each topic. So if you're going to report what Musk says the objective is, you immediately follow that with what others say it is. If you are going to say what SpaceX thinks the launch represents, then immediately follow that with what others think it represents. A says foo, B says bar.

I should add that this also makes articles much easier to write: every topic falls right into place without having to hunt for a section it belongs in. See also Wikipedia:Describing points of view. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, well kudos to Musk. Do we have a reliable cite saying this, so that the meta-meta aspect can be covered? —Sladen (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
We have already cited multiple sources saying it's a publicity stunt, its goal was to generate pictures for the press, it is a "message", it is meant to "show off something", all of which is "As with so much Musk does".[12][13] A "message" or a "publicity stunt" or a "show" is a medium. What else do you want citations for? What else is there to add?

My point is mainly about where the content goes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the cut of your jib, Dennis, and I applaud your post. It's unlikely that the majority of editors will pay it any heed though, so I urge you to make perioic edits to the article to bring it into line. Lord knows we could do with more clear-headed editors like you on board. nagualdesign 18:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here between "criticism" (ie. negative or critical opinion) and "reactions" which can be positive or negative. It would be POV if negative opinions are shunted together, but that is not what is going on here rather is simple organization of content. We usually have separate sections for "reactions" to events. If the current reactions section is only negative/critical then it needs to be balanced with more positive additions per WEIGHT. The "Objective" section (ie. SpaceX's plans made before the launch) is not the right place for material post-launch, articles are typically organized chronologically when possible: Pre-launch objectives, Payload, Launch, Future and Reactions. -- GreenC 05:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

You're segregating the opinions on the criterion of SpaceX vs everyone else. The objective section is SpaceX's soapbox, where Musk and his employees can describe their company in whatever glowing terms they choose. Nobody is allowed to respond in this section. Anybody who has anything else to say about it, good or bad or just re-framing the issue, is pushed down to the bottom of the article.

As far as positive reactions, nobody can find any. We had some lovely quotes about the greatness of this achievement, but they were referring to the Falcon Heavy rocket, not the use of a Roadster as a boilerplate mass simulator. If you can find anybody to cite who is positive about that, please add that. The nicest thing anyone has said is that it's not totally pointless and stupid. Either way, point and counter point belong together, not forked apart. As I said, see WP:CSECTION. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Aside from the Guardian article I've found most negative reactions stem from industry professionals whom are highly conservative. This is more a reflection of the industry, and not reflective of the general public. Hence this section is skewed to the negative and does not consider a far more positive public response. For that I suggest reporting on the number of views on the SpaceX livestream (13M views in 3-days) or articles with a more populist bent (one example, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5540042/elon-musk-tesla-roadster-mars-car-falcon-heavy-starman-spacex-launch-dont-panic-sticker/ or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5356825/Video-reveals-Elon-Musks-car-fired-MARS.html or http://www.techradar.com/how-to/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-elon-musk-tesla-roadster).Jheld6557(Jheld6557) 20:48, 10 February 2018 (AEST)
Pageviews and British tabloids? You have to admit that if you have to resort to this as sources, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. Musk worship at Wikipedia has become a plague. The thing to realize is that the more an article fawns over the subject, the more suspicious readers are. The cynicism inspired by propaganda actually makes them like the subject less. Not counting Daily Mail readers, obviously. Write about this dispassionately and readers will trust you. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You're only interested in adding negative commentary, and you insist on it being "up top". If you were genuine in trying to improve the article fairly, you would include a balanced mix of positive and negative opinion per WEIGHT and you would follow standard procedure placing it in a separate reception section, based on a chronological layout in the rest of the article, instead of trying to misplace it in the Objective section for no other reason then to get it towards to the top of the article space. -- GreenC 20:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I complement Musk on being a brilliant showman, a skilled manipulator of the news cycle, and an effective strategist in achieving his company's goals. This is very consistent with the commentary made by most respectable media. I'm the one who added the (reputable) Scientific American's complement that "Thematically, it was a perfect fit". What else would you like to add? I think you need to do a careful reading of the coverage of this. The tabloid Daily Mail article gushes about the Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission, which is fine, but that belongs over in that article. What does it actually say about the bit about using a car as ballast? The article simply quotes Musk and copies SpaceX's graphics and videos. You can't even quote the daily Mail saying anything like "it was a good idea to launch a car into space". They don't say that. They merely quote Musk, which brings us back to the issue: instead of independent thought, this article is a platform for copy-pasting what SpaceX says about itself. The Star reports this: "Musk made a pop culture reference!!!!" That's it. That's what the Star said. What content do you want to add to the article with this Star citation?

You keep complaining that you don't like what is being said, but what would you like? You want to report the number of page views and try to spin that as meaning public approval? Grotesque and horrible things get a lot of page views too. The raw number of 13 million views is rather ambiguous, without interpretation from a reputable source, like say Scientific American or Advertising Age.

I'm not standing in your way if you want to add positive reactions to using a car as a mass simulator. Please go ahead. All I'm saying is, your sources aren't giving you much. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on reception section vs integrated layout

Should statements, press releases, tweets, self-published video, etc, from SpaceX and Musk be given prominent placement in the article lead, and in the first article section (Objectives), excluding any non-SpaceX responses from that section, and keeping all commentary in the Reactions or Media section at the bottom of the article? These layout approaches are usually referred to as reception section vs integrated. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  • Comment This "RFC" is awful. It's unsigned (who made it?), and the wording is entirely non-neutral meant to influence the voter in a desired direction. It goes against WP:RFC directions which says "Statement should be neutral". I hope the anonymous nominator will reconsider by making a new rationale and signing it. -- GreenC 20:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
It's non-neutral because the phrasing implies the information from SpaceX, in the lead and first section is pro-SpaceX opinion. I.e. on par with the non-SpaceX opinions in the reactions section. Anything from SpaceX saying the whole business is a great thing doesn't belong in the lead, and should go with all the other opinions in the reactions section. But if they are simply the source for the facts, the RFC shouldn't imply otherwise.Fcrary (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • how would you phrase it - depends what action you're trying to accomplish but just: "Should the reaction section be merged into the Objective section?" That's it. Very simple to understand and to !vote on - black and white. Then, in the survey section make a !vote "Support" with a rationale that includes what you wrote above. -- GreenC 03:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Integrated The subject is hard to nail down. Is it about a car? A spacecraft? A technological advance? The specific choice to use a Tesla car rather than mundane boilerplate (spaceflight) makes this a publicity stunt, and all of the statements, tweets, and videos are advertisements. There is nothing wrong with that and it's quite obviously very effective and good for business. But we should not structure this article the same as an article about a creative work like a book or movie. WP:CSECTION explains why; in particular this article is really about a corporation and its PR, and as WP:CORG explains, segregating reactions or commentary about companies makes for poor articles. The top of the table on criticism shows two main approaches, reception section and integrated, and integrated is ideal for topics where public opinion is divided and motives are not universally agreed to be sincere. We all agree that Catcher in the Rye is a novel, and that the author intended it as a work of art. We don't all agree on the examples in the integrated section on the table above: PETA, George Soros. Integrating third party praise, analysis, and criticism is the most neutral method for handling this kind of topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
It's literally a road car that's been hurled into space. It's about the car. Maybe it's a spacecraft or technological advance. Calling it a "stunt" and "advertisement" is a pejorative opinion. It might as well be called a work of performance art, or even sculpture when you include Spaceman, the other objects and the video. These things are all opinions that should be presented as opinions, who said it and where. But for Wikipedia purposes we are documenting the car itself and how people respond to it. -- GreenC 18:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
You are projecting your own likes and dislikes into the article, rather than dispassionately following the sources.

Saying "it's about a car" is like calling a press release or a legal document a "piece of paper", or a sculpture a "piece of stone". We call Fountain (Duchamp) a work of art because that's what reliable sources tell us it is. It does happen to be just a urinal, and if there is significant (non-fringe) opinion that it is just a urinal, we can give those opinions appropriate weight in the article. If it deserves weight, we can cite those who say that the Magna Carta is "just a piece of parchment, nothing more". We call it a charter, a legal document, because our sources tell us it is, not because of what you and I and a bunch of anonymous editors happen to think.

Musk and SpaceX have taken the position that this is "just a car"; that it is out there in space "just to be silly", "because we can", etc. That whimsical tone is part of the image the company wants to project. Yet it's not just that, and he reveals a lot when he said "If we can send a Roadster to the asteroid belt, I think we can solve Model 3 production." Advertising Age, Business Insider, and the New York Times, among others saw a connection between Tesla losing 3/4 billion and this very public distraction. These sources, as well as Scientific American, have said it is not just a car. They have said it is a publicity stunt, a piece of corporate marketing and branding. It is not "just a car in space", it is a message. The overwhelming consensus tells us that, just like the overwhelming consensus tells us that the Magna Carta is not just a piece of parchment, it has symbolic meaning beyond whatever physical materials it is made of. You might happen to think that calling it a publicity stunt is "pejorative", but again Advertising Age, Business Insider, Scientific American, etc. think no such thing: they say it is a brilliant piece of corporate image making, and it shows how far Musk is ahead of his competitors. It is deliciously ironic that to make this an effective PR stunt, Musk must maintain a cool pose, not admitting what it is but performing for public appearances that he shoots cars off into space just because he is that chill.

It all comes down to WP:WEIGHT: the greatest weight from our best sources is that it is a PR stunt, and a very good one; a less weighty POV in our sources is that it is a bad, or harmful, or irresponsible PR stunt, and the least weighty but still significant POV is the position from Musk/SpaceX/fanboys that it's "just a car" they threw into orbit because "whatever dude". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


  • Separate. The lead and objectives sections do cite SpaceX, but only deal with facts about the payload. Nothing in there speaks to whether or not the whole business was a good or a bad idea. I'm for keeping facts, regardless of their source, in the lead and objectives (and payload and orbit) sections, and opinions in the reaction section.Fcrary (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Facts? If the Objectives section is merely "facts about the payload", what is the Roadster payload section for? The Objectives section begins by quoting Musk's justification for using a car. The whole point of the section is about why they used a car and not concrete. In the lead, first sentence quotes Musk's "something fun and without irreplaceable sentimental value" (straight from the press kit), speaking directly to whether or not it is a good idea. It's all SpaceX's exclusive soapbox until the very end. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The Objectives section is about why the launched a car instead of some other sort of test mass. That section factually describes their stated reasons. It doesn't include any SpaceX statements arguing that those motives are good or bad. That wouldn't belong under Objectives. Now, if you have a non-SpaceX reference pointing out other motives (say about it being good publicity at little extra cost), that might have a place in Objectives, as in "Others have suggested that doing something "fun and silly" was not the sole objective..." As long as the text is phrases to describe, not judge, why they did it, it's about objectives. If it's people saying what they think about those motives, it ought to be under ``Reactions.Fcrary (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Factually? It parrots the company line. The Daily Mail takes the same servile approach to Musk’s every word, but our most reliable sources are generally agreed that it’s not for “fun”, it’s business. It sells cars and distracts from Tesla’s bad news financials. The stated motives are in dispute and that is why we cannot treat them as facts. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Let's try again. I wrote that "That section factually describes their stated reasons." That's correct. Note that I said "stated reasons." SpaceX stated what their reasons were, and the section accurately (factually) describes what the company said. What people (SpaceX and others) have said about their motives is a matter of fact. And stating those facts in the "Objectives" section seems reasonable. But there have also been many statements about whether or not people agree those motives, or what they think about the whole thing. That belongs in a separate "Reactions" section.Fcrary (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, in the most reductionist possible sense, you can claim that parroting the official company message from the lead to nearly the end of the article is "factual". That kind of naivete has never been what we consider neutrality; Wikipedia policy has always been to use your common sense, and be aware of the effective meaning of any content, not just the literalist fig leaf that "it's a fact that Musk really did tweet this, there for it's fine". The lack of secondary sourcing is evidence of the glaring problem with this. When all your sources are self-published media from the subject, you're effectively handing them their own private platform. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep reception section - How society reacts to the car is material enough for a section. For example is it a spaceship, a satellite, an art object? Is it a good thing or bad thing? Spacejunk or advertising? Much can be, has been and will be said. Currently it's NPOV because one editor has add many opeds from obscure sources of a singularly negative tone, it's looking not encyclopedic but a "list of bad things people said about the car". -- GreenC 18:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"How society reacts" may or may not define an act. Someone charged with breaking the law might claim it is something other than a crime: they can call it an act of civil disobedience, or performance art, or a legitimate act of war, whatever. How we describe it depends on the judgement of history and of our sources. The Manson Family might claim that what they did was Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) -- whatver the hell that is, but we just call them murders. But we don't call George Washington a traitor or a terrorist or a common criminal, even though from a certain social or legal perspective, his acts could meet those definitions. It isn't up to SpaceX whether we treat this as just a car in space, or whether our entire approach is to treat it as a PR stunt. How a thing is defined is determined by the general consensus of our best sources, even if the actors/creators/owners/whatever define it otherwise. This article is not SpaceX's personal webspace: "a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say." We are not subservient to how SpaceX happens to have framed this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I think we have enough references to add something 'neutral' to the Objective section. I'd say something like "Others have noted the publicity value of launching a Tesla and suggested this may have been an unstated objective." Fcrary (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree, if we can't merge this into a single section, then at a minimum, each of SpaceX's claims as to why they launched a car into space should be followed by a summary of the general consensus among reliable sources that it is a successful, groundbreaking, and admirable PR stunt, or words to that effect. If we go that route, the minor point of view that it's a malevolent or failed or harmful PR stunt can be described in another section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Separate - In the Objective section, it may be stated that the publicity generated by the test launch was also a calculated/suspected move to promote Tesla. No need to editorialize further, and certainly not indulging in a shower of WP:PEA reactions, e.g: envy, coup, visionary, stunt.. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Dennis, you have been reverted dozens of times on this by numerous editors. Then you opened this "survey" and it is clear that point-counterpoint format in the Objectives section is not to be done. Regardless, you keep disrupting the article. Enough! There is a section for the Objectives and a section for what the world thinks and interprets of the event. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Separate, perhaps with revisions/renaming the Objectives section. Summoned by bot. Currently, the Payload, Launch, and Orbit sections are pretty clinical. Integrating the Gimmick, Art, Debris, etc. reactions into those sections would not improve the article flow or balance. (Indeed, it may dilute the weight given the reactions.) WP:CSECTION encourages "Reaction" over "Criticism" sections, with understanding that article flow may lead to a section or integrated. Let's take one of the examples of "integrated" articles, like PETA. In the PETA article, the Campaigns section has half a dozen subsections, each of which is a story in itself; so too with the Positions section. It makes sense to describe a campaign/position and the reactions to it, not save up the reactions to 15 different sections to the end of the article. This is not the case here. It is one, simple event. The criticisms actually get more attention and fullness with the current approach. The lead section is balanced. That said, the Objectives section could use work. "Objectives" as used here is a synonym for "motive" and motives are not objectively identifiable; you can cite what someone said their motives were for firing someone, but that is not as objective as the date they were fired. Other observers may claim other motives were at work, but how would you prove such a thing? Perhaps with something else they have said. Maybe we should get out of this mess and re-name this section what it is: "Background". The moon rover paragraph is great, but it has nothing to do with Objectives; it is more background. We could add a sentence or two from a reliable source pointing out other parts of the context, such as the marketing benefits, if there are an appropriate sources for this and it is due weight. Or not, that's a separate question. Adding such a sentence or two to a Background section would still be compatible with a Reactions section. Chris vLS (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Great idea with "Background", I'll just apply this suggestion and get rid of the POV tag. Other editors can then add more well-sourced views, of course. — JFG talk 03:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Separate – Now that the pace of editing has calmed down a bit, reactions look better when grouped together in the Reactions section. Of course we must strive for NPOV everywhere. — JFG talk 05:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Leave as at the time of this edit As I read the current version at the time of my writing this, it is nothing to fuss about, and certainly nothing to waste time and edits on. Anyone disagreeing, disagree in good health. I'm outta here. JonRichfield (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • A note for the good of the order: I agree with what seems to be the consensus here, that it should be left separate, but the OP seems to have a very clear leaning towards combine. Perhaps they already have, but especially looking at their first comments, I suggest they go and get a cup of tea and relax for a minute before carrying on. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't posted anything in this thread for 13 days. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is now - summoned by bot. There are multiple problems with this article but the cultural impact info isn't one of them (except now as I type I see my edit to move the cultural impact section to the right place has been reverted). Cultural impact is now in the wrong place. In any case, I'm more concerned that this is waaaay too long and detailed, and also there's really nothing about the car except that it was owned by Musk and shot into space. It's mistitled. Others tried to address this before by changing the title to reflect that it's the car launch part that is being covered, but that failed to get consensus [[14]]. When was this car built? When did Musk start driving it? Was it the first Tesla? Where was it shown or mentioned before it was jettisoned into space? The point is that this isn't about the car, but about the space launch. Back to the original RfC - as with any article, any claims or statements made by the company should be treated as such and clearly stated as being the company's position, with any contradictory reported info included for balance. Seems to be the case here, so as far as I'm concerned, this RfC can be closed. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to cross examine you on this, but I'm uncertain about what specifically you're referring to. When you said "claims or statements made by the company", you are referring to the public reasons SpaceX gave for why they chose to use a car as a dummy payload? And "contradictory reported info" means the sources who say their reasons included PR, not just whimsy? Everyone seems to agree more or less that the two things can both be in the article, somewhere, and you're saying having SpaceX's statements in the first section and the counterpoint in the last section satisfies the NPOV policy at WP:STRUCTURE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Bratland (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem. It's quite simple - sorry if I made it less so. In this case, the POV info has been addressed so I was speaking more in general. The original RfC asked if Tesla's claims should be treated as fact. I'm saying no - but it's perfectly fine to simply state that that's what they say, and list other counterpoints that can be cited, to balance things out. That seems to have been done here. So yes - you're following that I'm saying Tesla's claims can be put in the lede, as long as the counter claims are also, and have equal weight. So both points in the lede, or both not, but not one in the lede and one in the last section - that would be assigning undue weight to one perspective. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Order of the sections

Should the Reactions section be moved higher in the article? I came to this article when summoned to the RfC on whether to have a reactions section. I do think it reads as a fine section. That said, the Launch and Orbit sections, while interesting, do not seem as notable as the Reactions, given the fine level included. At least, I think the debate over whether it was "junk" or "what we normally do, it's fine," etc. is more notable than "A license for the launch was issued by the US Office of Commercial Space Transportation on February 2, 2018." I would propose moving Reactions to either a) after Background but before Launch or b) after Launch and before Orbit. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand the motivation, but reactions to any event are usually listed after the description of the event itself, otherwise it would be hard to comprehend what people were reacting to. Perhaps the solution is to give more emphasis to reactions in the lede section. — JFG talk 09:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
As JFG said, most articles on Wikipedia are ordered chronologically as things unfold, to provide needed context for later sections (eg. etymology sections often come first). The assumption is a general reader with no foreknowledge of the topic. It would be strange to read reactions first. It would also reflect in the lead section with reactions coming first and what the article is about coming last. Also the sentence about license seems like a detailed bit of trivia that could be removed, it's a legacy from the early days of the article when someone was updating a news event that in hindsight doesn't seem that important (in this article). -- GreenC 17:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're exactly right. I have been saying for some time that this is a problem, and it gives undue weight to lesser content, while taking the consensus of our best-quality sources and throwing it on a junk-heap at the bottom of the article. The use of a car as a marketing stunt has been the primary consensus of prestige media, while secondary news blogs and specialist tech blogs have written lazy articles that simply repeat the official line from SpaceX. We have one (1) blogger who free-associated on the topic of "found art" and that is placed on near-equal footing with the best, most professionally edited sources in this article, multiplied by a dozen or more instances. The unfounded fears of space collisions are similarly placed on near-equal footing with the serious reactions. The POV-pushing this accomplishes is to give the illusion that the assessment of mainstream, serious sources is as absurd and silly as the "found art" and "space junk" nonsense.
The problem is that a small group of four editors has taken ownership of this article. Every time someone like you, Chrisvls, stops by and points out that it is violating WP:UNDUE, they get stonewalled by these four editors, and then after a frustrating day, that editor leaves and finds something more worthwhile to do. The ones who hang around then get to pretend there is consensus to keep the article in the current format rather than do anything about it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, no. Not unless I'm one of the four editors you're accusing. I know we're supposed to stay polite, but honestly... You come across as a long-winded blow-hard with an agenda, who just throws around accusations of conspiracy when people honestly disagree with you. Can you conceive of a world where most people honestly disagree with you, as opposed to a world where it's all a conspiracy by a few people who are out to get you? Fcrary (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Can you identify any place where I said there was a conspiracy? Secret meetings? Coordination? Show me where I ever said that. What I did say is that there are a group of four editors who stick with this article every single day, and revert it to the staus quo. Status quo stonewalling is such a common thing that there are whole pages written about it. It's discussed in several areas, ownership of articles, gaming the system, etc. Many editors in the past have fallen into status quo stonewalling. It just so happens that in this case there are four doing it at once, and it so happens, on one article. Your suggestion that I can't conceive of was world where is' not "all a conspiracy" is a pretty blatant way of saying you think I'm crazy. Can you at least post diffs of where I ever said a conspiracy exists? If not, please revert your personal attacks.

If I were the only one saying this article's layout is not neutral, you could say I was failing to take the hint, failing to realize that a strong consensus exists. But that's not the case. There are at least as many editors who think the status quo is not neutral as those who wish to maintain it. That includes some of the very four who keep fighting to maintain the status quo. Some of them admit the layout is flawed, yet if any proposed alternative isn't yet perfect, they won't give it a chance. This status quo trap is so common that an entire policy was written about it: WP:IMPERFECT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: There is no pretending. There is a consensus, but you just don't like it, so you keep posting extended diatribes and accusations. If you genuinely believe that there is a cabal working against you, counter to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I suggest you take it to WP:AN. Or better yet, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
@Chrisvls: Do you feel frustrated by the responses you've received, as Dennis suggests, or do you accept the rationales provided? It may help to alleviate Dennis's obvious frustrations if you provide a response, one way or the other. nagualdesign 23:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Why should Chrisvls have to come back and repeat themselves to you? They told you once. Get the message: the low weight assigned to the reactions sections is not OK. Pretending you need it repeated before you'll take is seriously is gaming the system, and filibustering.

This exactly what I mean about this pattern of ownership. Editors who make their case once are discounted. You've decided that anybody who disagrees with you has to be harranged with repeated demands to re-state their case, and if they don't hang around and put up with that, you pretend they don't exist. I didn't make 96.54.135.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) raise the undue weight issue 5 days ago. I had said nothing for days before they noticed the same problem and tried to discuss it. I hadn't said anything further for two days, and then Chrisvls also noticed problems with de-emphasizing the reactions. What I have done is point out that it isn't just me alone: there are here in just the last week three of us who don't approve of how your "consensus" group has chosen to organize this content. You have at best a 4 to 3 split, which is more accurately called "no consensus". You pretend 96.54.135.148 doesn't exist, and you're getting ready to pretend Chrisvls doesn't exist if they choose not to sit here and be cross examined until they're exhausted.

WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:Stonewalling describe these classic Wikipedia tactics. The illusion of consensus is created by driving away outside opinions. These "go away", "drop the stick", "go have a cup of tea" bits of passive-aggressive advice are thinly described ownership behavior. "I suggest you take it to WP:AN" is another way of saying, "You're not welcome here". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Why should Chrisvls have to come back and repeat themselves to you? They told you once. Get the message That's what we call "discussion". Chris makes a valid point, other editors reply, and perhaps Chris accepts the rationales provided, or perhaps not. Who knows? The only way to tell would be to ask Chris, which is what I did.
"I suggest you take it to WP:AN" is another way of saying, "You're not welcome here". No it is not. I meant it sincerely. If you think the rules are being broken then you should blow the whistle on us. If you don't want to do that then you may as well pipe down, don't you think? nagualdesign 23:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I clearly don't think. But you already knew that. Yelling "shut up" at me 50 more times is going to be just as ineffective as it was the previous 50 times you tried it. What you do is not "discussion". What you do is create red herrings to throw the discussion off topic and poison the well. It is a very effective way of driving out every new editor who tries to join the process. Both JFG and GreenC replied to Chrisvls as if they had never heard of any of this before. They should have responded by saying "As a matter of fact, you're not the first one to notice this very issue." Or better yet, not immediately trying to quash their points at all, and instead step back and see if anyone outside the small club here has anything to add. "you may as well pipe down" is typical of the kind of hostility and harassment tactics you use.

As far as blowing the whistle on you, I'm doing that right now. You just don't happen to like the way I'm going about it, but in case you forgot, you don't own this talk page so you don't have to like it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:nagualdesign. nagualdesign 23:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe reporting yourself to ANI is what's referred to climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Or disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Or process for the sake of process. I forget which. There's a term for it, whatever it is. Anyway, none of this is relevant to the thread here, which is titled Order of the sections.

I have said the reactions section should be given greater weight, specifically the marketing portion. An IP editor a few days ago also said there were related undue weight problems, giving too much space to the Art thing and not enough to Marketing. JFG, Slade, and I agreed with that person that there is an undue weight problem. Now Chrisvls has started a new thread saying they, too, think Reactions needs greater weight. A lot of editors think greater weight should be given to the Marketing part of the article; it should be longer and it should be moved higher.

Do you have any relevant discussion to add on that question? I have cited about a dozen sources on this; I could re-post all those links here if it would help. Maybe you could cite some reliable sources that support keeping the current article layout, or cite evidence to the contrary. Would you agree that our goal seems to have become to find a way to give greater weight to that part of the article? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

  • It seems clear that the dynamic about this article should be improved. No one can do that but ourselves. I think both sides missed opportunities to say, let's get back to the content, or to ignore the other's attacks. That's all I'm going to say about process, because what everyone should do, myself included, is focus on content. Listening to each other's content ideas is is where we each get to prove our own good faith.
I hear the argument that you need to describe the event before the reader will understand the reactions to it, but I'm not sure that applying it here precludes us from moving the section up. I don't see much in the launch or orbit section that the reader would need to read first to understand the reactions section. And while the license sentence is an example, there's a ton of detail in those sections that is like that. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, some of it is the kinds of fascinating stuff that serendipitously teaches us something new. But I don't see anything in it that is required reading before the reactions.
That said, I agree that it seems weird to go from Background to Reactions. Sure, reading the lead alone is enough to understand the reactions, but it does seem like giving more detail on the event should come before giving more detail on the reactions to the event. So maybe Launch, then Roadster Payload, then Reactions, then Orbit. Interestingly, that is the actual chronological order... most of the reactions were in well before the roadster entered its orbit or the observations were made... Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Chris. I agree with pretty much everything you've written here. And you make a good point about the actual chronology of events; that the reactions came before the payload was in heliocentric orbit. I'm not adverse to switching the order of those 2 sections (Background → Roadster payload → Launch → Reactions → Orbit) if others agree, in which case it might be wise to make Cultural impact a subsection of Reactions. As an aside, Background and Roadster payload might be worth merging. nagualdesign 07:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Chrisvls, also happy with experiments of reordering content (reorder vs. rewrite). Previous efforts in this direction suffered from unanticipated reverts… —Sladen (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I would just combine Launch and Orbit into a single section, composed of two sub-sections, and call it "Operations" or something. They both deal with the physical operation of the Roadster and should be kept together conceptually. -- GreenC 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
They both conceptually deal with the physical journey of the car - from launch into space, to orbit and into helio orbit .. breaking that up with a reaction section in the middle would be weird. They could easily be combined into a single section, call it "Launch and orbit" to be literal. -- GreenC 16:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Chrisvls, thanks for making a suggestion on a change to the article and and since other people and I agree with it I have reordered the sections. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Still not good because as noted it makes no sense to split the launch and orbit, they are the same topic: the trajectory of the craft. -- GreenC 19:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
On closer reading the Orbit section repeatedly back tracks to the Launch. It's not so cleanly delineated between the two in the text. The topic is the same thing, the progression of the craft from start to end. Breaking it up into sections is somewhat artificial when you read the text. -- GreenC 19:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to split up the sections describing the pre-launch setup, the launch, and orbit. One option might be to have a section called intent or purpose. Remember that this article is about the Roadster in space, not the Falcon Heavy; it's not so much about why you need a dummy payload. It's about why they used a car. In an chronology of an event, you have 1) inciting incident or desire, 2) methods for achieving that goal, 3) execution 4) aftermath or reactions. That has a logic or chronology behind it. A lot of our articles about cars or motorcycles begin by describing what they hoped to achieve. BMW F650CS is structured this way, as is Honda Super Cub or Harley-Davidson Model W.

Nobody has said the purpose or intent was to create space junk or space debris; That is a post-hoc reaction. A surmised unintended consequence. The suggestion that it's found art is also post-hoc; nobody argues they meant that. Some compare it to a sequence in the movie Heavy Metal, but don't argue SpaceX intended that. All of this stuff is properly called reactions or analysis. On the other hand, we have SpaceX and Musk telling us the reason, the intent or the purpose, was to "have fun", to be whimsical, to be silly because they can. They said that in many different ways. We have a very significant body of sources who don't believe that is entirely accurate. They say that Musk, while an offbeat character, is also a master of public relations, based on significant evidence from his past behavior. It is extremely implausible that it never occurred to Musk or anyone at SpaceX and Tesla that this would have a huge public relations impact. Sources say Musk is too savvy to have not thought of this, and they say it's obvious that it was a smart PR move, and it was good advertising for Tesla and the Musk brand construed broadly.

So if you begin with a section along those lines: Goal, Intent, Purpose, Background, whatever you want to call it, to describe the reasoning behind this choice before the launch, it makes sense. The commentary from the prestigious media on this topic was published after the launch, but they are all describing what they believe was the real intent. Nobody calls Musk a liar or anything; they laud him for his deft public presentation. Part of the PR is to not say it was a calculated PR move. It's an organizational structure that would work. Since we agree the current structure isn't working, why not try something else and work with that for a while and see if it is better? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

" to describe the reasoning behind this choice before the launch, it makes sense." - His stated reason is already mentioned, and nobody knows his "reasoning behind his choice". Speculations on that (e.g. free marketing by the mass media reaction) already has a prominent spot and length in the Reactions section. Adding an assay in the introduction speculating on his "reasoning behind his choice" is POV. You have been told that many, many times by several editors. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Except that there is quite a bit of consensus that the status quo is not working. You're just saying "keep the same layout, reactions all go at the end". The status quo has been rejected. If you want to offer a suggestion that is not the status quo, that would be constructive, but there has to come a time when we stop trying to defend this layout. It's not neutral

People and companies do things for reasons that they don't admit to. Can you imagine an article like Volkswagen emissions scandal that said at the top "VW says the intent of their actions was totally innocent and they never in any way intended to device anyone" and then way, way down at the bottom of the article it says "Many authorities don't believe VW and think that in fact Volkswagen deliberately gamed the system for their own benefit". And this isn't even accusing SpaceX of anything illegitimate. It's merely saying, "the whole world agrees that their intentions were quite a bit more than merely having fun". When you call this "speculation" we're back you saying this is a fringe theory. It's not a fringe theory. The found art idea is a fringe theory, or else very near to being a fringe theory. The belief that this was designed and timed to enhance the public image of Musk's brands is an entirely mainstream view shared by the most reliable sources.

The first thing we all need to do is agree that the New York Times is a more reliable source than some guy's blog. When the NYT is saying exactly the same thing as all the other serious media, it has to be treated accordingly, not lumped in with kooks ho fear a Kessler event. There's a difference. Be neutral in form is a good essay that explores this in depth. Neutral content isn't enough; the structure must also be neutral. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a profound difference between layout and POV. Following the discussion, layout was addressed today by several editors without a single complaint or revert. Nobody is asking to change the focus of this article, but you, and for three weeks now. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Are we back to this? Seriously? You're saying WP:POVFORKs don't exist? Read the NPOV policy: WP:STRUCTURE --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is stopping you from creating the Tesla space ad (2018) article that you proposed above for the move. That is all you see and that is all you want to write about. Go for it! BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Please enough straw man nonsense. I'm trying to fix an internal POV fork, and you think it's constructive to say I should make an external POV fork? You're wasting everyone's time. Did you look at the NPOV policy? It says "It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

It would be constructive if you were to offer any other way of addressing this undue weight issue. We're trying to find a way of raising the profile of the most mainstream reactions and de-emphasizing the more obscure ones, without deleting them. I don't want the whole article to be about the car as a PR stunt. We all agree we don't want that. We're trying to find something in between. Can you help find a way to bring more attention to the mainstream views regarding PR, without making the whole article about it? It doesn't have to be perfect. If we can agree on something to put in the article, it gives others an opportunity to improve it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

A lot has been done to appease your position. The Marketing was not mentioned in the lead, now it is. The marketing used to #8 in the TOC, now it is #5 (moved up 3 spots). It is the first entry in the reactions section. It is the longest sub-section with the most sources. I see no way to appease your position further, every appeasement is only met with even stronger demands. You don't compromise. -- GreenC 15:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Please stop with the straw man hyperbole. I haven not made any substantial changes to the article without consensus for some time. I had opposed any mention of he "found art" as WP:FRINGE, but I agreed to drop it. Adding the content in the marketing section is not a "concession": it's the least you can do to follow the NPOV policy, by including well-sourced facts, particularly when you're going to devote space to an obscure blog post by Australian professors and low-grade tech blogs. The article still devotes all of the top 2/3 of space to a SpaceX-only soapbox, where all other POVs are excluded. Mentioning reactions in the intro is not a concession. It's the least you can do to adhere to MOS:INTRO, yet you have taken two steps back with the phrase "variously interpreted as a marketing move for Tesla, an art object, contributing to space debris or as a potential biological contaminant in space", implying that the opinions of one single blogger are equal to multiple examples the professional industry analysts and the hugest-quality fact-checked mainstream media. The implication is that saying it's a PR move is just idle chatter by randos. It's still in a garbage dump section.

I have compromised repeatedly, and have not tried to force through a version of the article you don't want. You have undercut and diluted every attempt to communicate the verifiable fact that there is a mainstream consensus view that is not the same as the official SpaceX PR version. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Having read through the article once more, I think that combining the Launch and Orbit sections into a Trajectory section was a very good idea. Leaving the Orbit tracking until last works well, as does having Roadster payload and Cultural impact as subsections. nagualdesign 07:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The experimentation seems to have worked out well. Quite like that it now ends with the slow/long-term "death"/degrading of the Roadster by radiation/micrometer impact. —Sladen (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, the order works well now. Thanks to all who helped thrash this out. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the order/layout works well. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Order changed again in Special:Diff/828122137 (by Timtempleton), reverted, and re-reverted in Special:Diff/828132054 (by Dennis Bratland). —Sladen (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
After the latest change, the consensus order is mostly respected, and having Cultural impact above Reactions does seem to work too. Can everyone please discuss any further changes of order before implementing them. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Another example of Bratland's disruptive behavior. -- GreenC 15:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to adhere to BRD process, without so much of the R

This article has been stuck with little significant change in structure or content; what is known as status quo stonewalling. Many are unhappy with it, but no proposed change is perfect enough to satisfy everyone, particularly to satisfy the small group of editors who stick to this article day in and day out, pushing aside contributions from newcomers who don't stay around doing battle day after day. Seven proposed name changes were rejected in favor of the unpopular status quo in the space of only 5 days. A consensus-seeking process called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is one of the most effective ways around this kind of logjam.

You see a lot of reverts with edit summaries that say "per WP:BRD" but reverting legitimate changes is plain old edit warring, not BRD. The "bold" part means making a significant change. A big change shakes things up and allows entrenched partisans to step back and reevaluate. Bold edits should be welcome when you're stuck. The problem is, newcomers make a bold edit, and one of the old guard reverts it within minutes. This bold change lasted all of three minutes before one of the gatekeepers jumped on it. This change wasn't against any policy or guideline, didn't add unverified facts, didn't delete verified facts, and didn't really change the article content at all. It reordered some sections.

In one instance after another, each newcomer to this article has been slapped down and has not come back. At least a dozen have stopped by and tried, and none of them stayed. It's still me and the same four. New editors are being discouraged from sticking around after one edit.

Proposal:

  • Adhere to BRD. Don't revert a bold change unless it can't be improved and it truly violates policy or common sense. Read Revert only when necessary.
  • Restrain yourself if you're one of the five who have camped on this article, Sladen, BatteryIncluded, JFG, GreenC, and myself, from reverting any bold change, especially if the edit is by someone not among this group, for at least 24 hour, or even 48 hours.
  • Make small improvements if you really can't restrain yourself, without trashing the bold change altogether, or else discuss.
  • Wait to reply in any discussion thread for editors outside the group of five to have a say. Give it 24 hours, before dominating the discussion. You'll still get to talk, but let others speak a little first.

BRD is not mandatory, and everyone is always free to edit. But there is such a thing as restraint. There isn't any harm in letting a bold change stay for a day or two while the rest of the world gets a look at it. There is always time to revert it back if you really feel that strongly about it, but chances are you will think of a way to work with and build upon the new version, rather than trash it, and the club of contributors on this poor article will expand because editors will feel welcome. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The above patronizing post is another example of Bratland's disruptive behavior. Calling well meaning editors trying to improve the article "campers" who "own" the article. -- GreenC 15:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This article will never become your "Tesla ad (2018)", nor will focus on your beliefs. No matter how much Wiki-lawyering you muster. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk%27s_Tesla_Roadster/Archive_3&oldid=1136696588"