Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:18, 16 March 2018

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2017. The result of the discussion was draftify.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Automobiles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spaceflight Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Change article title?

I understand the WP convention that space mission pages are named for the payload, and the point that the roadster is, in Elon's own words, "the silliest thing we can imagine" as payload. Nevertheless, this article title makes the whole mission sound far more frivolous than it actually is. I'd suggest renaming the article "Falcon Heavy demo mission dummy payload" or similar. Any other suggestions/comments? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, WP:COMMONNAME? —Sladen (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sladen, could you clarify what aspect of that policy you think applies here? Are you suggesting that the existing title is the most common way that relevant sources refer to this payload? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Rosbif73, although not the ultimate answer, WP:GTEST / WP:GHITS may be a good sanity check for whether a proposed name change is likely to be more beneficial or accessible for readers:

• "elon musk's tesla roadster" -wikipedia: 81,500 hits
• "falcon heavy demo mission dummy payload": 1 hit (this talk page)
• "falcon heavy demo mission dummy payload" -wikipedia: 0 hits

Are there any other names that we could also test for consideration? —Sladen (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The Falcon Heavy has enough spinoff articles to add another one such as 'Falcon Heavy dummy payload' because it is so frivolous to the launch system and its development. If it was an actual boilerplate we would not be talking about it. I'm not convinced it needs a name change. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "falcon heavy dummy payload" -wikipedia: 1 hit (Reddit speculation)

—Sladen (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to eliminate non-space-related hits from the counts:

• "elon musk's tesla roadster" "falcon heavy" -wikipedia gives 20800 hits
• "tesla roadster" "falcon heavy" -wikipedia gives 275000 hits, so clearly there are lots of other variant expressions used to describe this vehicle. I'm not convinced that the current title is the most common. However, it doesn't seem that there's any real consensus for a change of name at this time. With a bit of luck, SpaceX will give the payload a proper name of some sort once it's been launched, rendering this discussion moot. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

See how the Government calls it. So would Modified Tesla Roadster (mass simulator) be a suitable title ? Hektor (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Tesla Roadster" alone is not a description of this single car. It has more Google hits but it is not a suitable name here, for the same reason we don't move Space Shuttle Columbia (unique object) to Space Shuttle orbiter (type).

"Modified Tesla Roadster" is too general, and I don't think anyone would search for this term. The brackets wouldn't help either.

I think the current title is fine, unless SpaceX gives the object a unique name in the future. --mfb (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"tesla roadster mass simulator" has a non-zero number of hits (200), so is a possibility (but less well-known than the present name). —Sladen (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Permanentlink/824108476 included the "modified Tesla Roadster (mass simulator)" wording from the licence in MOS:BOLD form. This was removed in Special:Diff/824134305 (by BatteryIncluded). —Sladen (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The title is flippant and misleading. It's misleading because one would expect an article with this name to be about a car in the normal sense of a car -- as in it's life as a thing you drive around. Every other article titled similarly is about a car in the thing-you-drive-around sense. The title should be more evident as to what the article is actually about.
It's flippant because it seems (to me at least) to be trying to be cute with an in-joke. That is, that a reader needs inside knowledge to know what the article is really about and that the title is "coded". That's not cute. It's flippant and unencyclopedic. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

98.216.245.29, what name(s) would be better? —Sladen (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just wanted to add some weight to the "it's a good idea to improve the title" camp. Anything more accurate would probably reduce the flippancy factor at the same time. If the title suggests it's about a spacecraft and not a car, then a little bit of digression educating about orbits could be a little more justifiable. A number of names have been suggested already. The first alternate suggested "Falcon Heavy demo mission dummy payload" seemed pretty good, but whatever, as long as it's described as a spacecraft vs. as a car. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"Tesla Roadster Spacecraft"? 98.216.245.29 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

In case you have not read above, the Tesla car is a car, and will remain a car whether you put it in the ocean, on a road, or in orbit. A camera or two won't make it a spacecraft, nor a dummy driver. Nor a guide to the galaxy in the glove compartment. Call this article whatever, but I will confront any name implying it is a spacecraft. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, "Tesla Roadster Space Payload" then. Whatever. But, "Mr. Wonderful's Wonderful Car" is misleading and unencyclopedically enamorous of our Mr. Wonderful. It's not what the article's about. The article is about a car being used as a space payload, which is notable. It's not about a car as itself doing ordinary (or even special) car-like things, as is too-easily inferred by the current title. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

After launch: Tesla car in orbit. Or something like that. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• "tesla roadster spacecraft" -wikipedia (1 hit)
• "tesla roadster space payload" -wikipedia (0 hits)
• "mr. wonderful's wonderful car" -wikipedia (0 hits)
• "tesla car in orbit" -wikipedia (1,200 hits)

98.216.245.29, are there any other plausible suggestions? —Sladen (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Google "hits" are completely immaterial to deciding how to name an article. That's mind-bogglingly unencyclopedic. Let's not waste space here with any more of that. Please.  :-) 98.216.245.29 (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The Roadster is only half of it—we're completely forgetting about Starman in the title, which is what people remember and think about. It isn't even Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster anymore, but it is Starman's. I would suggest something like "Starman's Tesla Roadster" or "Starman and his Tesla Roadster" because those titles adequately describe the entity that is the work of art now floating through space. Keavon (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

We should not be inventing a name here. Before it was sent up into space it was Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster and it has not been given another name since. It was a payload, but now it is not. Perhaps one of the official designations like COSPAR ID 2018-017A or SATCAT no. 43205, but do not just make up a name. In time a common name will result and we can move it then, until then we should leave it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Arc 5D disk info

Mentioned as part of load, but not much on it I could find. Found this: https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11018018/5d-data-storage-glass Flightsoffancy (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There are some links there that can be followed which give more info. Currently the wikilink for Arc 5D disk redirects to an article on 3D disks which I believe in inaccurate as the 5D disk has additional properties. But we don't have an article on 5D technology or the Arch Foundation. -- GreenC 23:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I found this article: https://medium.com/arch-mission-foundation/arch-mission-foundation-announces-our-payload-on-spacex-falcon-heavy-c4c9908d5dd1 Erick Soares3 (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I don't see why we need to include "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster is a first generation Tesla Roadster owned by entrepreneur Elon Musk". It's not like the title of the article is ambiguous and this is called "Steven Spielberg's Tesla Model S". We just need to say that Elon Musk owned this Tesla Roadster. epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, per MOS:BOLDTITLE, we shouldn't bold "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster" if this isn't the natural title. As it is, we already need to explain who Elon Musk is, and clarify that this is a first generation Roadster (because the link isn't obvious). epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)​

Flyby or not flyby

The text says the roadster will not fly by Mars while the image indicates a flyby in 2020...Hektor (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Roadster will fly close to Mar's orbit soon, but Mars will be far away at that time. Due to the wear and tear the car will suffer (this could alter its orbit), it is hard to predict what will happen in the future. Maybe in 300 years it will have a flyby but within our lifetime it will not get close to Mars. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

No flyby. (And still not a "spacecraft in a mission to Mars".) The space junk will fly as far as Mars' orbital path. But Mars could be in the opposite side of the Sun at each pass. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, though, that it's misleading that image says "flyby". It should say "close encounter" or equivalent (assuming that's the case, instead of just a Mars orbit crossing). Meithan (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the graphic of the orbit from the article for now; it's an objectively misleading image that has false information on it. I'm working on creating a better graphic. I'm basing it on this image provided by Elon Musk himself on Twitter. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 05:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Be aware that the image tweeted by Musk incorrect, it has the wrong aphelion. And I'm also working on an orbit diagram, similar to this video (but using updated orbital elements). Should we both prepare an image and have others vote? Meithan (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the possible close encounter in 2020, I extracted orbital positions of the Earth, Mars and the Roadster for the next 2 years from JPL Horizons, yielding this. The 2020 encounter is pretty close: 7.5 million km. Does this qualify as a close encounter? I would definitely not call it a flyby though. Meithan (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

That is an interesting bit of info. I want to include it but we need to cite a source with easier access than Horizon's Database. Any suggestions? BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Meithan: From what I understand "flyby" is simply another word for "encounter" in the context of space exploration. Even then, a distance of 7.5 million kilometres can't really be considered any type of encounter. There's been quite the debate over the years over whether or not Cassini's observation of 2685 Masursky is considered a "flyby". NASA has never publicly called the event an "encounter", and it made a closest approach of 1.2 million kilometres, much closer than the Roadster will come to Mars. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the JPL Horizons Ephemeris, the Roadster will pass about 20 lunar distances (<8Mkm) from Mars on October 6, 2020, flying over the north pole of Mars, close enough to change the orbital parameters of the "spacecraft". Tom Ruen (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If you'd like me to remove the word "flyby" to File:Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission orbit Feb 6 2018.png, that's easy enough... I replaced it with "closest approach < 8 million km". Tom Ruen (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

p.s. Definintion: fly·by: a flight past a point, especially the close approach of a spacecraft to a planet or moon for observation.

Tom Ruen: I don't think 8 million km is "close enough to change the orbital parameters of the "spacecraft"" appreciably. The radius of Mars's sphere of influence is 0.58 million km, so I'd say that the influence on the Roadster's trajectory is really tiny. Formally, being outside the sphere of influence means that the Sun is still the dominant force, I'd say by far at this distance.

Frankly, I'd say it'd be best if we avoid the word flyby, as people might imagine things like photos of Mars. "Close encounter" seems more neutral and less attention-drawing for the general public. Meithan (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

For something like 8 million kilometers, I'd be tempted to use the term "distant encounter." That is something the Cassini project used internally for close enough to mention but not to make a big deal about. I'm not sure how commonly that phrase is. By the way, this is close enough to change the Tesla's orbit, but not by much. Fcrary (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I like "distant encounter". It seems asteroids passing by the Earth are worth a mention in the media when they pass closer than ~20 lunar distances. However, considers an approach "close" when the asteroid passes within 1 lunar distance. So I'd say "distant" is appropriate. But perhaps we should wait until a knowledgeable source qualifies the 2020 encounter. Jonathan McDowell tweeted that the encounter is "well outside Mars' gravitational sphere of influence".

About the encounter altering the trajectory, I still think it's too far to make an important effect (I mean, every body in the solar system perturbs the Roadster's orbit; it's a question of quantifying how big the effect it is). One can do a quick napkin calculation to estimate the size of the perturbation Mars represents compared to the pull of the Sun. Since the Roadster will be about 1.67 AU from the Sun at Mars encounter, the ratio of distances to Mars and to the Sun is on the order of 1.67 AU / 8 million km ~ 31, while the Sun-Mars mass ratio is 2e30 kg / 6.4e23 kg ~ 3e6 ... Since perturbations scale as ~M/r^3, the distance effect is on the order of 31^3 ~ 3e4, which is 100 times smaller than the mass effect. In other words, the perturbation of Mars at closest encounter represents a "1% effect" on the Roadster's trajectory. Big enough to be of note? Meithan (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I found one source that talks about the Mars "flyby", of course using the same JPL data as me! Nothing else is close at all. Roadster will make its closest approach to Mars in October of 2020, coming within 4.3 million miles, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at Harvard and spaceflight expert. The trajectory shows it goes over the north pole of Mars AND happens to be close to a Earth-Mars opposition as well! Tom Ruen (talk)

Yeah, I saw McDowell's tweet. He's also sourcing the ~7 million km figure from the JPL ephemeris. And he says "well outside Mars' gravitational sphere of influence", which I understand to mean it's definitely not a flyby, and that it's probably not even a "close encounter", as asteroids in "close encounters" with the Earth typically pass well within Earth's sphere of influence. I like Fcrary's suggestion of calling it a "distant encounter" at best. We could mention that it's the closest encounter until 2030, but still a distant one. Meithan (talk)

Distant encounter is fair description to me. If the inclination was closer to Mars it would be a lot closer. I made a chart of the conjunction as seen from earth, showing it is as far above the ecliptic as Mars is below. And JPL shows its peak magnitude is also there, around 25, possible to see! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

For a distance comparison I saw this today, close is apparently alway relative: "ZC16D6D is an Apollo-type asteroid with a diameter of 90-200 metres. It was first observed at Catalina Sky Survey on February 9th, and will make a close approach on February 14th, at a distance of 0.05 AU (7.2 million km) from Earth. Now it is observable at +17.4 mag and brightening." Tom Ruen (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's a solution beyond Nasa's 2030 numeric integration. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Roadster JPL Sol#6. Close approaches. The 2047 approach to Earth looks fairly close. Nominal orbit has it brighten to 19.3 mag.
  • 2020-10-07 Mars: 0.049 AU (0.048/0.050)
  • 2035-04-22 Mars: 0.021 AU (0.004/0.038)
  • 2047-01-12 Earth: 0.030 AU (0.018/0.041)

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 Misplaced Pages: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". 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• OK, how would you phrase it then? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:39, 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 Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 ]. 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 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 19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add:

'']'' agreed with '']'' that the Roadster space launch was the "greatest ever car commercial without a dime spent on advertising", demonstrating that Musk is "miles ahead of the rest" in reaching young consumers, where "mere mortals scrabble about spending millions to fight each other over seconds of air time", Musk "just executes his vision."<ref name=Wnek2018>{{Citation |url= http://adage.com/article/special-report-super-bowl/advertising-marketing-elon-musk/312307/ |title= There's Advertising and Marketing, and Then There's Elon Musk |first=Mark |last= Wnek |magazine=] |date= February 8, 2018 }}</ref><ref name=>{{Citation |title= Tesla created the world's best car commercial without spending a dime on advertising |first=Mark |last= Matousek |website=] |date=February 7, 2018 |url= http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-made-the-worlds-best-car-commercial-without-spending-money-2018-2  }}</ref> 

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that "Reaction" section should be just removed because the selection of which particular "reactions" to mention is WP:OR (not just POV). The article is already a lot of fanboy whoo-ha, but that section makes it worse by reading like a gossip page. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Choosing which reactions to mention is what we call "editing Misplaced Pages". Somebody has to decide, because article content can't choose itself. The primary criterion is defined by due weight, as well as general content policy, and verifiability. If we're going to lead with quotes like "something fun and without irreplaceable sentimental value" or say it would carry the "silliest thing we can imagine", we've already levt behind simple facts and we're going to sound pretty gossipy no matter. So then we should at least try to balance everyone's expressions of feeling, jealousy, or irritation, and not just let Musk have the platform to himself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: The page has been unlocked; feel free to add your proposed content yourself. — JFG 08:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Talking about space-junk implications is fine, but the section goes about the wrong way by turning it into an unencyclopedic gab-fest. Primary-sourced "reactions" (which is all the section really is) aren't notable. You choosing them and calling it "editing" doesn't make them notable. That's synthesis of a new idea, a POV, from primary sources, not "editing". The section is all "He says, and he says, and she says, and they say..." -- an unencyclopedic form. 98.216.245.29 (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Section is NPOV because it's a collection of negative criticism from obscure sources and no sense of weight what in balance the world is saying which is by and large positive. -- GreenC 17:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Orbital parameters

There's a still bit of inconsistency in the various orbital parameters reported in the article, specially the aphelion distance. We should pick a reference and stick to it.

I downloaded the Cartesian heliocentric positions of Earth, Mars and the Roadster from JPL Horizons and computed the trajectory's actual aphelion and perihelion distances (for the next passages) instead of obtaining them from the osculating elements. They come out as 0.9860 AU and 1.6638 AU. Should we use these? Meithan (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some better sourcing now but unless I misunderstood I don't think what you did would comply with WP:CALC anyway. 08:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't comply with WP:CALC. An alternative is to use the osculating elements directly output by Horizons, with the condition that they are taken after they've stabilized following Earth escape. A few weeks should do, apparently. This direct Horizons query returns the osculating elements between 2018-Feb-08 and 2018-Dec-08 in 1 month intervals. The aphelion distance ('AD' in the table) starts at 1.75 au but quickly stabilizes around 1.6639 au. This is using JPL's orbit solution #7, by the way, which was posted today.

I think we should use this value (rounded to 1.66 au perhaps) and cite Horizons directly using that query. I'm pinging Nagualdesign and Insertcleverphrasehere since they were recently involved in a change to the aphelion value (and this should be discussed here). –Meithan (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

NASA JPL is still using .99 and ~1.67 in the horizons database. — Insertcleverphrasehere 03:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for considering me, but my only contributions regarding the aphelion have been monkey-see-monkey-do edits where I made all the numbers the same, purely for consistency. I took the number that was referenced (at the time) and mentioned 3 times in the article and copied it into the infobox, along with the reference.

I have just altered the orbital diagram though, so that it matches the current (1.67 au) aphelion, and if you change the numbers drastically again someone's going to get a message with a stern looking emoji on the end! nagualdesign 03:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: yes, the JPL Horizons "object page" cites '~1.67 au' (emphasis on approximate), but the orbital elements consistently show an aphelion closer to 1.66 au for the rest of the year (including around the upcoming aphelion on Nov 9). I can settle for either value. However the article currently cites '1.68 au' in the text and '1.6779 AU' in the info box. –Meithan (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I've been warned ;).

But don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing over 1.66 vs 1.67 au (that difference is immaterial), but rather on choosing a stable reference for the orbital elements. I believe osculating elements from JPL Horizons after ~March is the way to go. If you guys don't oppose that, I'll go ahead and update all orbital elements and cite the direct query. And Nagualdesign, frankly I wouldn't re-upload the diagram; the change in aphelion is less than 0.01 au, which represents a difference in your diagram of a few pixels at full res and less than a pixel for the thumbnail. –Meithan (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've implemented the proposed changes to the orbital elements, with the new aphelion at 1.6639 au, and updated the text throughout. In the end I settled for JPL Horizons osculating elements at epoch 1 May 2018, as the elements are very stable (at the precision shown in the article) at that moment and going forward. The reference now points directly to the elements at this epoch. I propose this is used as the "standard" reference from now on, to be updated only when JPL publishes further solutions for the trajectory (which will be less frequent as the Roadster gets further away from Earth). PS: and Nagualdesign, I just don't think it's worthwhile to update the diagram for this tiny correction. –Meithan (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Meithan, that's very useful. I agree with your proposal to keep those elements as standard reference. — JFG 11:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Car year & other specs?

I have seen at least three different years claimed for this car: 2008, 2010, and 2018. I came here looking for a link to a more reliable source, but this article doesn't include this information or other specs about this Roadster. Would love to see basic specs added. 38.108.59.142 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

38.108.59.142, VIN is possibly 5YJRE1A34A1000686, but a cite has not yet been located. Perhaps a resident who knows their way around the public records system in California may be able to do some research. It will likely confirm that the car was "built" in Hethel, England (Lotus factory) and then air freighted into the US for "final assembly" by Tesla Motors. The reason this content is not in the article is because we are lacking citations sources. When cites are located, it can of course be added. —Sladen (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The vehicle that was launched was Elon's 2008 original Roadster. The picture on the page, is of his 2010 Roadster Sport. He still owns that, so not pertinent and misleading. Only Meme's use the year 2018 as a model year, since the Roadster is not produced anymore (since 2012) and will not until 2019, delivery 2020. 97.104.165.220 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A cite would be ideal. In the mean-time, …we can crosscheck with the Roadster Sport badge present during fairing encapsulation, and Musk's quote "So I wouldn't put anything of irreplaceable sentimental value on it.". And the paint colour. —Sladen (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@97.104.165.220: You have it backwards. Musk's original roadster (either VIN #001 or #004, depending on who you ask) was black. The red one that launched into space was likely his 2010 model with a VIN of #686. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Article title

The title was always sort of an unknown. Now that we know more about the mission, should we consider renaming it? I assume Elon owns more than one Tesla Roadster, so it's probably not super accurate to say this is "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster" without further qualification. Something that was unknown until shortly before launch was the presence of Starman. Perhaps "Starman's Tesla Roadster" or "Starman and Tesla Roadster" or "Starman and his Tesla Roadster" would be better names? The Roadster belonged to Elon Musk, but now it more belongs to Starman than Elon, and Starman is a big hit so it's a shame to keep him from the title. Open to other article title suggestions as well! Keavon (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the current title places too much emphasis on Elon Musk, and is not descriptive enough of the article subject. I would suggest Tesla Roadster in orbit or Orbital Tesla Roadster, or simply Tesla Roadster (satellite). "Starman" does not necessarily need to be in the title, but this article should be mentioned in Starman (disambiguation). (Well, its already there as Starman (SpaceX).) — JFG 14:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not in Earth orbit so it would cause confusion. It's not a satellite in the way we generally think of satellite's so it would also cause confusion. The article is mainly about the car after launch but is also about the car prior to launch. The article topic is a car. -- GreenC 17:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Rename to Tesla Roadster (boilerplate) per Boilerplate (spaceflight). 178.92.148.243 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

How about Tesla Roadster in space. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Boilerplate is a specialized term most people won't recognize what it means, and it was only a boilerplate for a while, now it's something else (what not sure). Of all suggestions so far Tesla Roadster in space is best, but I think whatever is done it should go through an RM given the controversial nature of the article. -- GreenC 18:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd approve Tesla Roadster in space. Note that the COSPAR database lists this object as "TESLA ROADSTER" (look for International Designator 2018-017A at Celestrak). — JFG 19:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: It's in orbit, just not in Earth orbit, I don't see much confusion possible here. I agree there would be more ambiguity if we called it a satellite. There was some discussion about calling it a "spacecraft" but that is also incorrect, as it lacks most features of a proper spacecraft (propulsion, attitude control, communications, thermal management, etc.) — JFG 19:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be a source of confusion for the non-space-aware(?) person. If you don't say orbit around what the natural conclusion is probably earth. Most things in the news (non-specialist) when speaking of orbit is about things in earth orbit. -- GreenC 19:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

One could go with Tesla Roadster in Heliocentric orbit (current state), but prior to that, it was Tesla Roadster in elliptical Earth orbit, and prior to that it was Tesla Roadster in a fairing, and Telsa Roadster stuck in an LA traffic jam, and sometime prior to that 38% of it started off in England. All of these types of titles have the disadvantage of only reflecting one particular state, and few are likely to meet WP:COMMONNAME (a quick WP:GTEST can help to sanity check proposals), as can writing the proposed phrase in the middle of a sentence to see if it works, or if every single use is going to require piping to make it work in natural language. —Sladen (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)? Per examples at Spacecraft#Unmanned_spacecraft is seems to classify as a spacecraft (it was instrumented, and transmitted data, even if that data's only purpose was images to build hype); Ratsat for example is another boilerplate that is considered a 'spacecraft' (at least in the loosest possible terms). Better name than any of the above and has a good ring to it too. — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

One could argue that it may quality as an "artificial satellite" but a "spacecraft", no way. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded, Boilerplate_(spaceflight) refers to boilerplates as 'non-functional spacecraft'. It is a spacecraft, at least in the loosest definition of the word as used in spaceflight terminology. — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Definition of spacecraft: spacecraft": "a vehicle designed for travel or operation in space beyond the earth's atmosphere or in orbit around the earth." Spin its wheels and see how much traction (delta V) it gets. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded Colloquially perhaps, but not per spaceflight definitions. If you want a reliable source: NASA JPL's Horizons database lists it as object -143205, "SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) (Tesla)." — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

A spacecraft is not defined by its location, but its design and function. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded; See . NASA described it “Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). Dummy payload from the first launch of SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch vehicle. Consists of a standard Tesla Roadster automobile and a spacesuit-wearing mannequin nicknamed Starman.". Sorry, but if NASA says it meets the definition of a spacecraft, you aren't going to convince me that the moniker is inappropriate. — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You can check it yourself by going HERE and clicking 'change' next to the "target body" and typing in "roadster". — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Convince the other Misplaced Pages editors. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying it is the best possible title, but it is the best I can come up with (and apparently NASA too). All of the others up above are ad hoc descriptors that fail WP:CONCISE or are completely made up. Tesla Roadster (boilerplate) is probably the next-best proposal above, but even boilerplates can be considered spacecraft, and even our own article on boilerplates lists the SpaceX roadster among Commercial spacecraft boilerplates. Unless something better is proposed, I think NASA's title is good enough for me. I am keen to see others weigh in. — Insertcleverphrasehere 21:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think (spacecraft) is probably best. If someone's trying to find the article, most people wouldn't think of boilerplate. The term is a bit obscure. Anyway, the article on Boilerplate (spaceflight) does say "(spacecraft)" and phrases like, "full-scale, non-functional boilerplate spacecraft..." So I think it's technically correct to use Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). On a related note (which I'm probably going to regret), do we know the Tesla separated from the second stage? Or was it broadcasting through the second stage's telecommunications equipment? Fcrary (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

For many days I looked for any information on a possible car-booster separation. Never found any, so I assume they remained together because SpaceX made no noise about further "accomplishments". BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that no, it did not disconnect, though I'm not certain of this. The Horizons listing seems to imply the attachment fitting as part of the listing, and NASA JPL isn't tracking any other objects from this launch, which heavily implies that they are travelling attached. However, I don't think we have official confirmation of payload non-separation. — Insertcleverphrasehere 22:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering the correct interpretation of the database display: The code "(Spacecraft) (Tesla)" means the third stage (spacecraft) is still attached to the car (Tesla). BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded. I'm not sure what you mean by that, the listing currently refers to several titles on the data sheet: "Tesla Roadster (spacecraft)" and " Tesla Roadster (AKA: Starman, 2018-017A)" and "Target body name: SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) (-143205) {source: tesla_s5}". I really recommend checking the listing yourself with the instructions above. Interestingly, it gives a payload weight of "~1250 Kg", which would imply the car alone. The terminology "(Spacecraft) (Tesla)" seems to have been slightly changed since the CNN source that I linked above was published. Update: sorry this sin't true, the listing in the search still includes this wording. — Insertcleverphrasehere 22:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fcrary, BatteryIncluded, and Insertcleverphrasehere: FYI, Jonathan McDowell has confirmed with a SpaceX source that the Roadster was not separated from the second stage. The special PAF also includes a plaque with engraved names of SpaceX personnel. — JFG 04:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Given a modicum of support for Tesla Roadster (spacecraft), I have launched a move request below, to try and gather consensus. — JFG 05:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead does not adequately summarize the article contents

Something like 1/3 of this article is devoted to describing the reaction among experts and major media to the idea of shooting a car into orbit around the Sun, and to Musk's claimed reasons for doing so. I attempted to add one (1) sentence to the lead summarizing the gist of this reaction, but others deleted it again and again and again. How can you have an article lead that ignores so much of the article's overall content?

I suggest the lead needs to summarize all sections of the article, and if the very first line is going to be devoted to adoringly parroting Elon Musk quotes, then the least we can do is follow that with mention of what most responsible experts have to say about it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what is the extra sentence being proposed to be added? —Sladen (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, like 30-ish words?

Musk's choice to shoot one of his Tesla Motors cars into space was generally interpreted as not merely a bit of fun, but rather as a savvy and unprecedented marketing and public relations coup.

"public relations coup" sounds pretty peacocky, but get a load of the sources. They consistently argue that Musk is the envy of other CEOs and brand managers, and they are all playing catch-up in following his ability to reach young consumers and get the most out of the modern media landscape. Ad Age described it as everyone else still spending millions on a few more seconds of Super Bowl ad time while Musk is spending millions "executing his vision". So it's an accurate summary of the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Minus the peacocks and mid-sentence negatives: "The decision to launch a car into space was interpreted as a savvy marketing and public relations coup." —Sladen (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Any objections? nagualdesign 04:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Good enough. Honestly, anyone who thinks that language is too peacock-y for an encyclopedia ought to do something about "something fun and without irreplaceable sentimental value". Cut that quote down, or paraphrase it into language with a little more gravitas. If you are comfortable with such a direct quote at the very top of an article, then I don't see why 'savvy marketing coup' bothers you at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"savy marketing" and "PR coup" are cliche phrases and I wonder what they mean. Why is it a "coup", a coup is when you take something over - do sources actually call it a coup? These are hot button phrases. If we are going to emphasis this one aspect it be done neutrally: "Some observers saw it as a marketing success for Tesla". It's short and leaves open adding additional reactions: "Reactions to the Roadster were varied, some observers saw it as a marketing success for Tesla, while others interpreted it as an art object, and others saw it as space junk." Now it's a summary (per WP:LEAD) of the Reaction section without overemphasizing any one reaction. -- GreenC 16:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreenC: Your suggestion would indeed be a good, brief, balanced, neutral summary of reactions the lead. — JFG 16:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

First, look up the definition of coup. Second, if those words lack the gravitas of an encyclopedia, then what is Musk’s dreamy quote doing there? I’m fine with the suggestion here, but these rationalizations prove my point about the lack of objectivity when it comes to this CEO superhero. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Quotes by Musk should also be shortened, paraphrased, or toned down. — JFG 17:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Excess quotation of him is big part of the problem. If the article was the Elon Musk bio, so many quotes would convey the tone and personality of the subject, but he is not the subject of this article. The phrase "marketing coup" can be placed in quotes and attributed AdWeek. Or "marketing stunt". What I'm saying about this here doesn't come from nowhere: it's in the sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem including a neutral summary of the reception section so long it's representative of the reception section. -- GreenC 04:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case, the deleting the summary again and again and again is a contradiction of editing policy. If, as you claim, you want a neutral summary, then your job is to rewrite the existing content in the lead to be more neutral. What you did was a wholesale deletion, and another case of stuffing all non-SpaceX messaging to the ghetto at the end of the article. If you want to be taken for a neutral and reasonable editor, and not a flack, then do not nuke content wholesale. Rewrite it. Tweak it. Suggest improvements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a problem with me, I'm not here to cause you aggravation. -- GreenC 05:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself. If you are fine with a summary of reactions in the intro, then why did you delete such a summary entirely? You claim you only want a more neutral summary, but you made no attempt to make it more neutral. I guess I have to admit I do have a problem with a line of reason that is clearly self-contradictory. I asked you in my edit summaries and elsewhere to stop reverting and discuss. I ask you now to offer a more neutral summary of the article content. Sladen, nagualdesign, and I are comfortable with the suggested text above. Either agree to it, or suggest a different version, if it's true that you do want a neutral summary of the reactions in the intro. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Dennis Bratland and GreenC: Stop edit warring! There's no rush to get the article how either of you might want it, and repeatedly reverting each other while saying, "You discuss it" "No, you discuss it!" is infantile. Just stop editing the article for the time being and engage in civil discussion. That's how Misplaced Pages works. And Dennis, you don't have to include everything that anyone and everyone says to be NPOV. To pick an extreme example, if some idiot says something stupid we don't have to include it just because it counters what someone else said. Not all commenters (in the media) are equal, and they don't all have to be given equal footing here. nagualdesign 04:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, I see you posted the section above while I was typing this. That's more like it. More of the same please. nagualdesign 04:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nagual, that's absurd. If edit warring is so terrible, then editors who have reverted others again and again and again are no better. The kind of hypocrisy one sees in these situations is disgusting. It's entirely based on a double standard that "it's OK when I do it because I'm righteous".

Your strawman argument is silly: I never said "all" responses should be included. I specifically mentioned fringe theories that we should not mention at all, such as anything based on the Earth being flat, or angering space lizards with our hubris. The irrational fear of space collisions or space junk, based on the incorrect belief that the car is in Earth orbit, or that the solar system is so crowded that a car out there is a hazard, or that it would have been any better to launch some concrete blocks rather than a Roadster, are not fringe. They are based on misinformation and faulty reasoning, but we have already been through numerous mainstream sources who hold these faulty believes. Sadly, we now are back to another version that ends with a calm reassurance that there is no risk that the car will collide with anything, without any context explaining why such a reassurance is needed. If a need exists to explain that a collision is not likely, then those who fear a collision are not mere fringe lunatics. Otherwise we'd need to reassure everyone that there are no angry space lizards.

More importantly, I don't ask that every response must go in the lead. That is your strawman attack. All I ask is for any. Any mention at all of non-SpaceX messages. We currently have no mention whatsoever of any reaction, even though much of the article is devoted to the reaction. The near-universal consensus among respectable, mainstream reliable sources is that this is not just about Musk being a chill dude with a cool sense of humor. There is near-universal consensus that he is a master showman and this is a brilliant PR stunt.

What is so embarrassing about all that? Put aside your feelings and defer to what the sources say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what is the "any" one sentence being proposed to be added to the WP:LEAD? —Sladen (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss each other and what we imagine our motives are. Just take the point, stop edit warring, and discuss content. Cheers. nagualdesign 04:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If you are that worked up about it, you should probably take a break for a day or so. There is WP:NODEADLINE. — Insertcleverphrasehere 04:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Nagualdesign, if you're going to keep accusing me of edit warring, then you are obviously here to discuss other editors, rather than content. Listen to yourself. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no further comment. Now, back to discussing content please. nagualdesign 04:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Aaaaaand now no one gets to edit the article... please everybody can we calm down and discuss things like adults? Discuss content, not other editors. — Insertcleverphrasehere 05:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why is a random person from a random college quoted? How are they an expert in space debris? Does NASA or anyone else in charge of space debris listen to them? Or did they just pass a college course that included a chapter on it? Who are they? Do reliable sources cover what they say? Dream Focus 08:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that you're talking about Hugh Lewis, see the link provided by GreenC below. Lewis is a senior lecturer at the University of Southampton here in the UK, and an expert in the field of space debris. His tweet was covered in Deutsche Welle, which seems like a reliable secondary source to me. nagualdesign 18:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Hugh Lewis is also an author on a book on space debris. As experts go, this is person is notable enough. The alternatives (deleted) are opinions claiming the car could trigger a Kessler event. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I hate to keep coming back to this but a "reaction" is an opinion. This misunderstanding of what kinds of opinions are allowed has to be resolved. Opinions that are incorrect may be mentioned, so long as they represent a significant point of view.

The definition of opinions includes things that people are wrong about. The fact that some people think the car is still in orbit, or that it was in Earth orbit long enough to set off a cascading exploding satellite disaster, or that such a disaster is even likely, is a significant point of view. Is it misguided? Is it wrong? Yes, they're in error. Anyway, it's fine. Eliminate that one source, whatever. Exclude mention of he Kessler thing. No problem. There are plenty of others. The Guardian for example, concerned about littering. Or rather, that this is the beginning of a slippery slope leading to space becoming a playground for the rich, and their dumping ground. Some are concerned about the symbolism of tossing trash into space, even it it isn't technically a real risk.

BatteryIncluded, please do not repeat that the car is not in earth orbit and a Kessler event is not going to happen. You've said that a dozen times. I hear you. We all hear you. We all agree. No need to repeat it. I've asked you several times if you understand that WP:WEIGHT includes points of view that are significant, even if they are factually wrong. Do you understand that? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we need to quote people who actually know what they're talking about. nagualdesign 21:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Policy contradicts you. See WP:VALID: "We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." There is nothing there about only mentioning those who "know what they are talking about". We definitely should not present this in a way that adds validity or legitimizes clearly erroneous points of view. The tone should not treat opinions that the car is a navigational hazard as factual, and we should clearly say why they are in error.

Can you please read over the relevant sections of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:WEIGHT, WP:VALID, etc., and Misplaced Pages:Describing points of view. If you wish to exclude opinions because they are too insignificant, have too few adherents and are fringe theories, yes, of course. But if you're excluding them on the grounds that they "don't know what they're talking about", then you're not reading the policy. This is exactly what I can't seem to make any headway with BatteryIncluded over. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

1. I said what I think, and no policy can contradict that.
2. Established scholarship = people who actually know what they're talking about.
3. I'm familiar with the guidelines, thanks.

nagualdesign 21:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

But what is your point, then? The discussion is over whether we should or should not mention opinions that are (almost certainly) in error. First you say you don't want those who don't know what they're talking about, and now you say you're "just saying"? You're not opposed to mentioning (without legitimizing) erroneous opinions? You were just interjecting what you "think" without intending it to be relevant to the topic? It's really hard to tell. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes. If you're asking whether we should include the opinions of people who have clearly got their facts wrong my answer is no, I think we should not. nagualdesign 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit request; grammar error

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Grammar fix: "deliberate control of both their timing and the content of his corporate public relations stunts was the envy" -> "deliberate control of both the timing and the content of his corporate public relations stunts was the envy" --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland: this is  Done — xaosflux 19:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

DW article

@Nagualdesign: - I don't get this cite: The source does not contain the quote nor the name "Hugh Lewis". Are we looking at the same source? It is a DW article with URL http://www.dw.com/en/what-you-need-to-know-about-spacexs-falcon-heavy-launch/a-42466661 - please confirm. -- GreenC 04:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. There's a 'tweet box' under "3. Where it's going". The quote was wrong though, which I amended. nagualdesign 05:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it, my browser's add blocker was making the box invisible. -- GreenC 05:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I'm taking it on trust that Dr Lewis is indeed an expert in space debris, which makes his tweet somewhat noteworthy. nagualdesign 05:20, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be in the UK https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~hglewis/ .. -- GreenC 16:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox edit request

Please amend the infobox, changing

| Orbit        = ]<br/> Perihelion: 0.98 AU<ref name="BGrayElements"> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210065005/https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/02/theres-starman-waiting-in-sky.html |date=February 10, 2018 }} SatTrackCam Leiden (b)log. Retrieved February 8, 2018.</ref> <br/>Aphelion: 1.67 AU <br/>Inclination: 1.05° <br/>Orbital period: 1.53 year

to

| Orbit        = ]<br/> Perihelion: 0.98&nbsp;AU<ref name="BGrayElements"> {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210065005/https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2018/02/theres-starman-waiting-in-sky.html |date=February 10, 2018}} SatTrackCam Leiden (b)log. Retrieved February 8, 2018.</ref><br/>Aphelion: 1.70&nbsp;AU<ref name="SFN_rearview"/><br/>Inclination: 1.05°<br/>Orbital period: 1.53&nbsp;year

mainly to bring the aphelion in line with the rest of the article. Or, if the aphelion really is 1.67 AU, change all other instances in the article to match. nagualdesign 05:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

​Checked Horizons database, JPL's most recent estimate is 0.99 to 1.67 au. Also au should not be in capital letters. — Insertcleverphrasehere 05:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, then let's swap out the reference and change all instances to 1.67 au. I never realized that au was lower-case! Thanks. nagualdesign 05:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

​Neither did I till I looked it up yesterday. — Insertcleverphrasehere 05:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Edit fully-protected}}. Rather than write another I guess someone can swap out all the 1.70s and AUs when the dust has settled. nagualdesign 05:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, at the moment it is close enough to be considered rounding. — Insertcleverphrasehere 05:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, what's 4.5 million kilometres between friends, eh? nagualdesign 05:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever amended the article. nagualdesign 22:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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 05:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support per criteria of our titling policy, especially WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. — JFG 05:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Opposed - Not a spacecraft but a car. I suggest Tesla Roadster in space. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a car that was turned into a spacecraft… That's the notable thing about it. — JFG 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 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 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 lists it as "SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft)" and "Tesla Roadster (AKA: Starman, 2018-017A)". — JFG 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 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 05:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Opposed Nobody (to speak of) calls it a spacecraft, per WP:COMMONNAME. What our sources do almost all call it is a "publicity stunt". Tesla Roadster in space (publicity stunt) would best comply with the "Use commonly recognizable names" policy, but calling it a spacecraft would be even further from that. If nobody wants "publicity stunt" in the title then I support the next best thing, BatteryIncluded's suggestion Tesla Roadster in space. Elon Musk sees his name repeated enough at it is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Are NASA and JPL "nobody"? — JFG 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 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.(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. 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 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 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)

• Opposed - not a spacecraft, or at least known as one. I would support Tesla Roadster in space. -- GreenC 05:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is stellar. Consistent with other famously-owned objects like Einstein's Blackboard. Besides, its not a spacecraft, its a payload. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Car is not a spacecraft. WolreChris (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). Per WP:SPACENAME, (spacecraft) is the preferred disambiguator for objects not in geocentric orbit. Also, Elon Musk has (had?) two roadsters, this cherry red one (S/N 686) and a much earlier first-generation black one (S/N 4). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per NASA's HORIZONS database calling it a spacecraft and because the current title is not neutral enough. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per HORIZONS, but would prefer "SpaceX Roadster" also per HORIZONS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment User:Ahecht is noting WP:SPACENAME as a guideline. Well, Misplaced Pages's spaceflight naming guidelines (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 Misplaced Pages 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) 18:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The car is not the spacecraft, it is ON the spacecraft. Support current title unless another of Elon's Tesla Roadsters becomes notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:14, 12 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 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)

• Oppose it's misleading; the article refers to a specific individual vehicle, but that disambiguation term makes it seem like a brand/class of spacecraft. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 13 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 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. Misplaced Pages'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.

• Support - nagualdesign 05:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Looking at commonname concerns, SpaceX Roadster gets about 68000 hits, while "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster" gets 132000. Given there seems to be broad agreement that the current title isn't working (regardless that it might be the commonname), "SpaceX Roadster" probably is pretty close to the next best commonname anyway. On top of that it is WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and probably the most likely to not result in a massive kerfuffle in this discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere 05:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Such a title is not as informative to our readers. Does SpaceX now produce cars? Is a new rocket called the "Roadster"? No clue about what this object actually is (a 2008 Tesla Roadster) and why it is notable (as a demo spacecraft). — JFG 06:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose - mainstream sources other than the NASA database don't use this. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 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 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)

• Weak support. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as mentioned above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - no evidence the Roadster belongs to SpaceX and not Elon Musk personally. Also gives appearance of a product called the SpaceX Roadster. Ambiguities of a literal interpretation will lead to future debates over title. -- GreenC 05:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Tesla Roadster in space"

Another alternative: Tesla Roadster in space or Roadster in space

• Support - BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose not a WP:COMMONNAME for the subject at all. For comparison, "Tesla Roadster in space" also gets 63000 hits (similar to "SpaceX Roadster"). However, looking at the first couple pages of google news, these seem to be almost exclusively the result of natural usage as part of a sentence, rather than as a title. In short, not a WP:COMMONNAME title compared to the others. "Roadster in space" is similar. These titles also sound awkward, like a 50s sci-fi cartoon advertisement: "The AMAAAAAAAAZING Tesla Roadster. IN SPACE!" — Insertcleverphrasehere 06:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - mainstream sources don't use this. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

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 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 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support – Passable as a descriptive title. — JFG 06:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Seems like a good compromise (given that we're never going to be able to agree about whether it should be classified as a spacecraft) and certainly better than the current title Rosbif73 (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Sounds like the title of a B-movie, and doesn't follow WP:SPACENAME. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Oppose - I'm not keen on either of those suggestions. Sorry. nagualdesign 03:25, 13 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 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 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 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)

• Weak Support it's not great, but it will do if nothing else gets support. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Weak support - Says exactly what it is, if a little verbose. nagualdesign 03:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - not concise, longer than current. Falcon Heavy payload isn't good for common recognition. -- GreenC 05:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support - Says exactly what it is. Straightforward, dry, and encyclopdedic is righteous and outta-sighteous! I'd say something more like "Tesla Roadster (Falcon Heavy dummy payload)", but whatever, almost anything's better than the current "Mr. Wonderful's Wonderful Car", which is a lotta fanboy claptrap.  :-) 98.216.245.29 (talk) 19:10, 13 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)

Tesla Roadster (boilerplate)

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 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 02:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose based complete lack of WP:COMMONNAME results for this wording. Might be worth revisiting if nothing else works, but I think we can find a compromise with one of the parenthetical disambiguators. Also "Orbital" to a layperson would probably imply 'in earth orbit'. — Insertcleverphrasehere 02:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Any sourcing here? I get a total of 3 Google results for this term with quotes. Orbital seems a strange word to use to describe something that isn't orbiting anything in particular (it will orbit the sun, but that's unavoidable). power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • for what it's worth, a merge with Falcon Heavy test flight avoids all these problems, but I doubt there's consensus for that at this time power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:00, 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 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 03:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support - Says what it is. Sounds a bit like a type of car though. nagualdesig 03:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't find any reliable reference to that name. I find a reference to it being "SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) (Tesla)", on the Horizons catalogue. But I don't feel that title is in any way descriptive. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 03:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Not looking for a name that does not exist, but a title. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – Note that all other name combinations can and should redirect to the article, to assist readers searching for "Elon Musk's midnight cherry Tesla Roadster", "A red car for a red planet", the "car in space" or even "Starman, the crash-test dummy in a spacesuit". — JFG 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - without saying what it's orbiting a natural assumption is earth by default, it opens ambiguity for un-informed readers. Seems better to use parenthetical dab over natural phrasing. -- GreenC 05:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Almost everyone will read orbital as "in Earth orbit", so you'll have to walk that back immediately and over-explain what it is orbiting. also, reductionist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Misplaced Pages doesn't necessarily use official names, but there's still time for you to support Tesla Roadster (spacecraft). — JFG 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 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)

• Oppose NASA may give it a designation as part of their tracking, but its not their place to give it any type of official name. -- Netoholic @ 17:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster (spaceflight)

• Support. Tesla Roadster (spaceflight). If not spacecraft or boilerplate, then spaceflight, really. 185.146.122.109 (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support I was going to wait a bit to propose this, as this discussion is already highly fragmented, but now it is here. Obvious improvement over most (all?) other parenthetical dabs. Compliant as a parenthetical disambiguator under: the subject or context to which the topic applies, as in Union (set theory), Inflation (cosmology); --per WP:NCDAB. It sounds good, it is non-controversial (clearly this is a spaceflight related topic), it is WP:PRECISE, it is WP:CONCISE, and "Tesla Roadster" is a clear WP:COMMONNAME for this topic (with adequate disambiguation to separate it from the car model). I think this is a good middle-ground among other proposals and has a good chance of making everyone happy, please consider it! — Insertcleverphrasehere 05:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Pings: @Ahecht, BatteryIncluded, Bellezzasolo, Dennis Bratland, Fcrary, Frmorrison, GreenC, Nagualdesig, Netoholic, Power~enwiki, Rosbif73, SarekOfVulcan, Sladen, WolreChris, Zxcvbnmn, and JFG: — Insertcleverphrasehere 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 11:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak support not a standard disambiguator, but not too objectionable, and better than the current title (which just as easily could refer to Musk's black first-off-the-assembly-line roadster). --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The car was launched into a spaceflight, but it is not called a spacecraft. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Must... pull... teeth... nagualdesign 16:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Just confusing. Is it a space flight? The flight of the Roadster? Or is Tesla Roadster a spaceflight term? Like boilerplate (spaceflight)? And always with the reductionism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose It's a generic Tesla Roadster, and Misplaced Pages:COMMONNAME. - ZLEA _Talk\ 14:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article is about the object, not the spaceflight, and that's not even the name given to this spaceflight. -- Netoholic @ 17:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• Opposed - The flight was the Falcon heavy demo mission; this article is about the car and why it was used as dead weight. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:04, 17 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 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 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 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 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.

organic

Re: "Radiation will eventually break down organic material and anything with carbon–carbon bonds". Is this not redundant; isn't anything with C-C bonds organic? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess. I think it will be more useful if we use parenthesis: "Radiation will eventually break down organic material (anything with carbon–carbon bonds)". Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Given the everyday word associations with organic food and compost, a slightly longer explanation (as per the current) is probably preferable. This helps keep the text accessible to all. —Sladen (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, Organic matter ≠ organic compound. We just change it to organic compound. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The first version of this was "Organic material, i.e. any material with carbon–carbon bonds, including carbon fiber parts, will eventually break apart due to radiation." A later edit streamlined it to, "Radiation will eventually break down organic material, anything with carbon–carbon bonds, such as carbon fiber parts." Inserting the 'and' changes it from an implied "that is", which is grammatical and typical of normal speech, to a separate item, with a totally different meaning. Someone assumed it was a comma splice or an omitted conjunction in a list of items, instead of checking the sources to see if the editor knew what they meant. Copyeditors do this all the time: they have a preconceived notion about the structure of a sentence and they change the meaning by forcing it into that structure. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Coma or no coma, organic matter ≠ organic compound. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

CBS 60 Minutes s46e27

Based on the preview clip at , Musk is seen driving the Roadster during Episode season 46 episode 27 of CBS 60 Minutes "Fast Cars and Rocket Ships", broadcast on 30 March 2014. Is anyone with access to a copy able to watch the full episode and see if there is any usable citation material/quotes specifically about the car. —Sladen (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And appears to be Musk driving his other one, the (very early) Roadster (Production 1). —Sladen (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

dummy payload

This edit Special:Diff/825492769 removed the word "car" from the opening sentence of the WP:LEAD, and moved up "dummy payload"→"dummy payload, or 'boilerplate'" (scare quotes included), placing it in the very first sentence. —Sladen (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You don't ask a question here, but I'll infer what you mean. WP:OBVIOUS would have us make sure that Tesla Roadster (2008) tell us immediately what it is: it is an electric car, or specifically a BEV sports car. This article is not Tesla Roadster (2008) and it is not of the highest priority to say what a Tesla Roadster is. This article is about a car in space. Per WP:OBVIOUS, the "it" is this: they shot a Tesla Roadster into into space. Those who don't have the slightest clue what a Tesla Roadster is are only held in suspense until the second sentence, when we reveal the obvious, it is an electric car.

The other very critical fact, one that much of the public probably has never heard of, is the idea of dummy payloads, boilerplate. It's pretty critical to explain that something had to be shot into space. So that's why the facts are revealed in that order.

Oh, also, scare quotes are double quotation marks -- you're attributing, or ironically attributing, the words to others. Single quotes used this way merely highlight the introduction of a specialist term. See . It's true there is controversy over quotation marks, and UK English isn't quite the same, but this article is in US English, naturally, and even if a reader interprets 'boilerplate' as scare quotes, it doesn't change the actual meaning very much. Boilerplate is the thing "they" (rocket scientists ) call it, which is the important part. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV in Objectives section

The Objectives section has been used as the exclusive province of SpaceX/Musk to make their claims about why they used a car for this. Normally this is undisputed: with a book or movie or other artwork, what it is is usually agreed. Critical response as to whether it's good or bad, or analysis of what it means is kept to the bottom of the article, after the work itself is simply described. A consumer product is usually presented the same way: describe what it is, then describe what the reaction was, how well it sold and the reviews. The Tesla Model X exists because Tesla wanted to enter the SUV market, because they make and sell cars. An exceptional case would be a real-life The Producers (1967 film) story: they produce a play, but the intent is not the same as any other play, not the stated intent. The real purpose is to lose money and keep the investors money.

The intention behind using a car as a dummy payload is disputed by the majority of reliable sources. That means this is not the same kind of article as a movie article or a car model article. SpaceX says they did it for one reason, and there is overwhelming evidence that industry experts and reliable media don't believe them. They aren't lying; it's not a scam, like The Producers or any kind of fake product. The media don't fault SpaceX and Musk for saying it's "just for fun", but saying that is still bullshit in the sense that it's rhetoric meant to enhance the real goal, which is advertising and public relations. It's not a bad thing: companies all do this and it's respectable. Ford and GM run cars in NASCAR to promote their brands, even though the entire thing is essentially bullshit too: the race cars are not even a little bit similar to the consumer products, but nobody blames them because that's not the point. It isn't pejorative to point out what experts say is the real intent behind shooting a car and not some concrete into space, any more than it's pejorative to say that car companies sponsor racing because they want to sell more cars. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what precisely is the proposed edit that might improve this? —Sladen (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If the problem is that the Objectives section contains nothing but the official company line, then the solution is for it to not be a section devoted to the only the company's POV, excluding all others. Specifically the section asserts their claimed intentions, and that should be followed directly by the most significant counter-claims as to what their real intentions are. Criticisms about crass displays of wealth, space junk, or lost opportunities for astronomy are tangential, since they don't directly contradict the official claims, and they have far less weight than the simple view that it's a marketing move.

An alternative way to accomplish the same thing would be to move the claims than it's just for fun down to the section that has the counterclaims. In place of Objectives, just describe why test rockets have dummy payloads, summarizing boilerplate (spaceflight) per the summary style guidelines. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what exact proposed wording might help achieve the desired outcome? —Sladen (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording you see in the edit history? You've seen the edits, right? Are you under the impression that NPOV issues can't be discussed unless a precise text is proposed? That's not the case, and it's usually counterproductive because it turns into quibbling over exact wording instead of a discussion of the real point. The question is whether or not any direct counterpoint to the company's claims shall be allowed. The exact wording is left to editorial discretion, and will inevitably be changed bit by bit every day anyway. It's a waste of effort to find precise words that everyone likes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, yes, the article has many edits. Pin-pointing which particular edit/wording would help discussion. —Sladen (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Ironically this gives undue legitimacy and undue weight to the minor points of view. The idea that it's an "art object", or that it's space junk, are not significant enough to be in the lead, and it's misleading to put them on equal footing with the much more significant coverage regarding marketing and advertising. The bit about reaadymade art comes from one blogger. The judgement that it's a marketing job cites a dozen sources, not merely The Verge or TechCrunch, but the NYT, Bloomberg, AdAge, AdWeek, The Economist, the BBC, Scientific Ameriacan, etc. There's a vast difference in seriousness between the major media and serous car and aerospace injustry watchers, and the blogosphere of minor web media like HuffPo or Wired. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, what proposed sequence of words might work better? —Sladen (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop the hectoring. It's just obnoxious, and point|y. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, yes, it is in the hope of pin-pointing precisely what is being suggested, so that discussion can begin to take place. —Sladen (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I could find other sources for the Reception section so it's not so heavily weighted to this one marketing topic as currently, but then the reception section is too long and looks like a battlefield. The entire paragraph you added "Musk's public demonstrations.." should go because it's largely unsalvageable NPOV/OR text and the sources repeat what is already in the first paragraph - we get the point and don't need to be bludgeoned with repetition and sources. -- GreenC 20:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"We don't need to be bludgeoned"? Please read WP:WEIGHT again, if you haven't done so recently. The policy repeats five times the importance of sources in gauging what is a widely agreed consensus, and what is a minor point of view, and what is fringe. The difference in both quantity and quality between basically every responsible and serious source, and one blogger over at the Verge, is exactly what the policy wants us to focus on. As far as original research, are you saying you did in fact read each of the cited sources and find no evidence at all for the wording? "offbeat approach", "visionary marketer ", "deliberate control of both the timing and the content of stunts" etc. We can walk through the sources one by one if you're seriusly claiming that these things are not what the sources said, but it seems like a waste of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The marketing is given clear place of importance as the first item mentioned, and it needs to balance the need to summarize the section. The language of the previous was overtly opinionated. -- GreenC 05:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've suggested this before, but what about, "Others have noted the publicity value of launching the Tesla, and suggested that this may be an unstated motive for this choice of a dummy payload." That's completely true (although we'd have to add references), and does not contain any judgmental language. Fcrary (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, any POVs outside the company would be less biased, but this still sounds very judgemental. Phrases like "unstated motive" have a much more sinister tone than just saying they "disregarded" the stream public messages from Musk on this topic. Saying "others" or "some" brings back the same weasel problem. "Industry observers" refers to the business press, major marketing publications, writers who cover the auto and aerospace industries, and the leading science publications. As opposed to The Verge or TechCrunch, minor web media known to be driven by clicks. One of the ways we avoid elevating low-value points of view (e.g. space junk, kessler events) is by not describing them on equal footing with major sources: "some say it's a marketing, others say it's found object art, and others say it's space junk that will destroy everything in orbit". "Some, and some and others" are vague and don't account for proportions, per WP:VALID. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Now do you see why people were asking about the exact phrasing your suggested additions? "Unstated motive" may imply something I didn't intend. Fine. But "disregarded the stream messages from Musk" isn't much better since it implies his statements are just propaganda. (Correct or not, that wouldn't be a neutral point of view.) "Industrial observers" would be fine, but only if you can reference an industrial observer. A story in Aviation Week would be an acceptable one, if you can find one that's specific on this detail.Fcrary (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The intention behind using a car as a dummy payload is disputed by the majority of reliable sources. Surely the only people qualified to comment on their own intentions are primary sources? nagualdesign 21:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, its very clear that there is a dedicated group of editors who have enormous faith that Elon Musk's every word must be taken at face value. Numerous high-quality sources say it's not that simple. Most of the sources -- not tabloids but the serious press -- say there is a direct connection between this media circus and they much less ballyhooed announcement on the very same day of Tesla's record-shattering $675.4 million quarterly loss. We're not even talking about mentioning that aspect.

So you do feel that if Musk says that's why he did it, his saying it makes it a fact? And you feel that anyone who says there were other reasons is disparaging him, rather than merely noting the usual way that public relations works? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Dennis Bratland}}, sounds reasonable to add the concrete suggestion of noting the launch was just before the Tesla quarterly results. Just need some suggested wording and cites to back it up. —Sladen (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Was also two days before publication of Jeremy Clarkson's review of the Tesla Model X.

That is WP:SYNTH (WP:OR) unless there is a source specifically drawing attention to these two things for some reason. -- GreenC 21:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rushe, Dominic (7 February 2018). "Elon Musk's Tesla announces biggest quarterly loss ever". The Guardian. tech billionaire Elon Musk sent one of his Tesla electric cars into space yesterday, a day before the company that built it announced its biggest ever quarterly loss. Just needs some suggested accompanying wording, which hopefully the proposer can suggest. —Sladen (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless a source draws attention to these two things??? I keep talking about being guided by sources and I keep getting the impression that you are not actually reading them. Because we don't have "a" source connecting these two things. We have dozens. Did you seriously not read any of the articles I cited? You have deleted content from this article at least a half dozen times, and the presumption we all make is that you actually clicked on the links and read the sources before you deleted anything. Is that true?

And outside that, right here on the talk page, two days ago I provided you with an Elon Musk quote that directly connects the Tesla quarterly report with this publicity stunt: "If we can send a Roadster to the asteroid belt, we can probably solve Model 3 production." Google says this quote has appeared in some 800+ news articles, and over 5,000 web hits. Here is the New York Times coverage.

Musk himself is not shy at all about admitting that this thing is an important public relations event, to boost both the image of SpaceX and Tesla, because he knows he isn't deceiving anyone; he's simply playing along as his fans expect. This article sounds like it was written by Batman fans who really believe Christian Bale is Batman. It's not disparaging an actor to point out what a good job he's doing at his role.

I'm not even asking to talk about Tesla's $771 million loss reported the day after the launch (what I just said above wasn't quite accurate). The paramount thing is to be responsive to sources. Treating the Verge and the NYT as equally serious is not neutral, and treating the company line as literally the truth is not neutral. Can we agree to carefully read the sources, and write accordingly? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So you do feel that if Musk says that's why he did it, his saying it makes it a fact? And you feel that anyone who says there were other reasons is disparaging him, rather than merely noting the usual way that public relations works? No, I'm not saying that that makes it fact. I'm simply saying that the only person/people qualified to comment on their own intentions are primary sources. If a secondary source begs to differ then we can present that as their opinion but they're not mind readers.

At the risk of sounding like I'm on the Tesla/SpaceX payroll, I really don't think that this article is the place to talk about Tesla's quarterly losses. nagualdesign 22:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So when a terrorist says "I'm not a terrorist, I'm a freedom fighter" or "I'm an artist" or "God told me to do it", nobody else is qualified to say "No, you're a terrorist"? There are many Featured Articles that contradict the stated motives of people with other, more reliable sources. I can walk you through the examples if you don't believe me. I agree we can leave out the quarterly losses, but that doesn't mean we have to disregard what the world is saying. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty flimsy straw man, Dennis, but to use your example, if a terrorist says he planted a bomb in the name of Allah then I think we can report that, yes. Or if a self-styled 'freedom fighter' commits atrocities and other people say it was the product of a warped mind then we can say what they think too. What we don't do is present such critics as omniscient. Simply put, for the third time, the only people qualified to comment on their own intentions are primary sources. Intent being an internal property of the mind of the intender. If it was a boardroom decision and we have sources that were in on the meetings then we could present that as such, but we don't. We just have the opinions of critics. Am I talking in a foreign language here? nagualdesign 22:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"...a dedicated group of editors who have enormous faith that Elon Musk's every word must be taken at face value..." I can't speak for other editors, but no. I think neutral point of view means that, regardless of what I, personally, believe, Mr. Musk's statement about his own motives should be reported. And reported without spin. That way the readers can decide for themselves.Fcrary (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the NPOV policy says. WP:ABOUTSELF item #1 "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;" and #4: "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". The official explanation from SpaceX is self-serving, and copious sources doubt it is quite the whole truth. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Musk's statement about his own motives should be reported. And reported without spin. That way the readers can decide for themselves. I concur. And no, I don't have enormous faith that Elon Musk's every word must be taken at face value. nagualdesign 22:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, The article is not going to focus on the marketing value for Tesla Inc. as the only reaction; it is one of many perspectives and it does not merit deleting the others listed. Yes, the car has a marketing value, and that is already mentioned, but that is not going to hijack the bulk of the article, nor minimize the mechanical function (dummy weight) the car played for this launcher test. Musk's stated strategy is to not pay for marketing, it has always been so for his companies, and this is not the place to exalt/vilify his corporate management choices. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, what I meant is that we should write something along the lines of, "Musk says his intention was . wrote , while wrote ." In other words, we just report what various people have said, without further comment or qualification. The insinuation that anyone bar Musk can possibly know his true motives is not very encyclopedic, but if someone said, "The reason he did it is because..." then we report that verbatim. Who is right or wrong is not our place to comment on. To be honest, all this talking in the abstract is rather pointless. It would be better to get some actual proposed wording if people want to debate it. nagualdesign 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Even if you apply the obtuse definition of 'authenticity' as meaning nothing more than "Was Musk's Twitter account spoofed?", and do not even consider whether we have any responsibility to ask whether or not the self-published claims were entirely truthful, it is still certainly an extraordinary claim, and it's clearly self-serving.

Consider:

1. Near universal agreement among high quality (non-clickbait) media sources that the effect was to help sell Tesla cars
2. And that it distracted investors from Tesla's dire financial situation
3. And that it is highly improbable that the launch would happen within 24 hours of Tesla's quarterly report by mere chance
4. And that reliable sources agree this is an unprecedented new form of marketing and advertising
5. And reliable sources tell us that Musk carefully timed the announcement of his previous use of a wheel of cheese as ballast to happen soon after the Dragon rocket launch, but not too soon; he made sure the first news cycle had run and headlines covered only the launch
6. And Musk himself spoke on a conference call to investors and made a direct comparison between "our" (i.e. Tesla and SpaceX, two ostensibly different companies) to shoot a car all the way almost all the away to the asteroid belt

It is extraordinary to take at face value the supposition that it is not an intentional marketing move or publicity stunt, based on zero evidence other than self-published sources. None of the self-published sources even deny or contradict the near-universal consensus. The only reason this consensus is possibly in doubt is because the self-published from SpaceX sources did not explicitly confirm that it was done for marketing. It is entirely plausible that using a car is both "fun" and "silly" and also a savvy marketing stunt. Why can't it be both? The self-published sources affirm only the first part; the second part is partly suggested by Musk's words to investors, and is the consensus of our best sources.

It doesn't serve the self-interest of Musk, Tesla, or SpaceX to say out loud that "it was all a publicity stunt". They would never lie about it, and they don't need to. It's merely in their best interest not to confirm the fact. Thus it is both extraordinary and self-serving to let the company's self-published claims be recited at face value as if they are undisputed facts. The policy WP:ABOUTSELF requires that the claimed reasons for using a car be put in context, not left as a soapbox for SpaceX's official company line alone, excluding other points of view.

Can anyone tell me how many reliable sources have said "No, the mainstream media got this all wrong! They're all wrong for calling it intentional marketing and promotion. BBC, The Economist, NYT, WAPO, AP, SciAm, AdAge, AdWeek all wrong. All of them. It's just a bit of whimsical fun and the timing is totally accidental. They shot a car in space only because Elon Musk is a cool guy who DNGAF. No other motives! Perish the thought!" Can you cite anyone saying that? A small cadre of 3-4 Misplaced Pages editors are saying that, yes. But that's original research and soapboxing. If you could cite any sources who did say, then you wouldn't have whole swaths of this article with only one source of information, a self-published one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Please could you just stick to making concrete suggestions? Cheers. nagualdesign 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I made several concrete suggestions in the form of actual edits to the article. You have seen them. Repetitively hectoring me with sladen's oddly specific demand is sonewalling.

You and three other editors have decided that the entire top half of the article is going to use one source, and only one source, and any other point of view is forbidden. It's a SpaceX soapbox. You can fix that by citing third party sources that share the single point of view that you four have decided to treat as "fact", while everything else gets shunted to the bottom of the article as mere "opinion". Cite a reputable, independent source who shares your opinion that this was merely a bit of fun and not a calculated publicity stunt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

In case it escaped your attention I haven't personally been editing the article aside from minor edits here and there. Every time I open my watchlist the article has had a multitude of edits and I haven't been keeping up with them. I honestly don't know what specific edits you're talking about, and I have no wish to search the history for your edits any more than I wish to examine anyone else's. I come here, to the talk page, to engage in debate and offer my opinions, but the article itself I have had very little input to.

Despite your misgivings I am not stonewalling you, or hectoring you with Sladen's "oddly specific demand". I'm simply making my own request that you mention, here on the talk page, any specific edits so that we can specifically address them, and that request applied to other editors as well. The debate has become protracted to the point where I think several of us are probably talking at cross-purposes. nagualdesign 02:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

SpaceX built the hardware, the plan, and performed the test. They certainly set their own goals. Calling them `primary sources` does not open Dennis the door to change that. The consensus in this Talk page (over multiple sections opened by Dennis) is that the reaction and opinions of experts and the press go into the corresponding section. We are done. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Having just read it once more, the Objectives section looks fine to me. I think the {{POV section}} tag should be removed. nagualdesign 03:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG 03:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Timing section NPOV

This section is a problem. The sourcing is weak and there is no actual discussion about timing. The timing could be completely meaningless. The section by its existence is making an unstated assumption that it was intentional and thus of importance, which no source supports. If it is purely coincidental there would be no reason to bring it up. The source from the Guardian is imparting two facts in the same sentence but is not drawing any connection between them, at best leaving it up to the reader to decide - or making no connection at all. That's fine for journalism but not Misplaced Pages, we don't imply things and leave them open-ended. Either we state clearly there was an intentional timing of launch with the earnings, or don't say anything about what could be a random event being improperly magnified into an entire section based on one journalist's brief sentence. -- GreenC 05:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The article is not about the finances of Tesla Inc. A single sentence in the 'Reactions' about the implied publicity value is more than enough. I say we delete that POV entry. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It was added based on trying to guess what {{U|Dennis Bratland}} might be suggesting, combined with the expressed desire by Fcrary/nagualdesign that "Mr. Musk's statement about his own motives should be reported. And reported without spin. That way the readers can decide for themselves.". —Sladen (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually that was just me quoting Fcrary, which I agreed with, and to my knowledge Musk hasn't mentioned that being his motivation. In the same section I also wrote, "At the risk of sounding like I'm on the Tesla/SpaceX payroll, I really don't think that this article is the place to talk about Tesla's quarterly losses." To which Dennis replied, "I agree we can leave out the quarterly losses". I don't think anybody wants to see Telsa's quarterly losses in the article. nagualdesign 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The timing section is not neutral so needs to go. I am removing it. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Good. nagualdesign 19:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Sladen's rather extraordinary addition looks awfully WP:POINTy. Was the idea to create some kind of straw man to knock down? That sort of behavior is not acceptable. If you want to change the article in along the lines of what I have suggested, then follow the SpaceX claims as to the intent of using a car directly with the counter-claims by any of a dozen reputable sources that the purpose was marketing. You can easily see that is what I was suggesting by looking and my actual edits. The edit history shows me making those exact changes, and the same three guys expunging any mention of non-self-published points of view from the Objectives section. Adding this Timing section to the very bottom of the article looks very much like some kind of joke, and an example of disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Find some reputable third party sources equal in weight to the ones mentioned (BBC, NYT, AP, AdWeek, etc etc) who say that it was not intended as publicity stunt, and cite them in the Objectives section. Otherwise you're citing self-published sources alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should also add in the Objectives section that they did not include a cheeseburger, did not include a gold fish, it was not a racist rocket, and it was not meant to scare the surrounding wildlife. BatteryIncluded (talk) 2:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Future orbit and collision probabilities

The random walk of cars and their collision probabilities with planets

On February 6th, 2018 SpaceX launched a Tesla Roadster on a Mars-crossing orbit. We perform N-body simulations to determine the fate of the object over the next several million years, under the relevant perturbations acting on the orbit. The orbital evolution is initially dominated by close encounters with the Earth. The first close encounter with the Earth will occur in 2091. The repeated encounters lead to a random walk that eventually causes close encounters with other terrestrial planets and the Sun. Long-term integrations become highly sensitive to the initial conditions after several such close encounters. By running a large ensemble of simulations with slightly perturbed initial conditions, we estimate the probability of a collision with Earth and Venus over the next one million years to be 6% and 2.5%, respectively. We estimate the dynamical lifetime of the Tesla to be a few tens of millions of years.

Yes, it is quite relevant. Now we have to craft a condensed text. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/825640343 was the first attempt at adding a couple of sentences. —Sladen (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Parody section

I added the following content:

This was subsequently moved to a separate subheading, simplified, then deleted with a comment to the effect that the parody is not notable. To a certain extent I have to agree; it is not particularly notable in its own right and the simplification was probably warranted. However, I think that the very existence of such an elaborate spoof video testifies as to the notability of the roadster in space and is thus worthy of note here. Comments? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is only the beginning of an wave that will grow with time. My suggestion is that you create an additional section: "In popular culture". See: WP:"In popular culture" content. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Have stuck it back (Special:Diff/825881213) under the sub-heading Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster#In popular culture. —Sladen (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Notability does not limit article content. The policy is at WP:NOTEWORTHY. We have an entire section devoted to a blogger's random thoughts that it is readymade art, along with an offhand comment a guy on a local radio station made about Heavy Metal. The Skoda commercial represents an investment in time and money to create; the Verge and 101.1 "The Edge" radio banter costs nothing more than the time to type out someone's stream-of-consciousness. Nobody else wrote about the fact that the Verge wrote about readymade art. On the other hand, the Skoda ad drew a reaction from motor1.com, drivemag.com, autoveolution.com, and autoblog.com. These web sources are low on the food chain, yes, but then so is The Verge. They are nothing like the chorus of very high on the food chain sources that have something much different to say about this.

The professional business press and industry analysts devote time to studying data and collecting facts, and they write fact-checked edited articles for the major real journalism publications. When they talk about how this affects Musk's brands, his public image, and put it in the context of the companies' financial prospects, it's not stream-of-consciousness banter. It's real journalism. That difference is what tells us what determines due weight.

This point needs to be driven home because a small group of editors on this article are singularly focused on not paying any attention to WP:WEIGHT. The Verge commentary is given an arbitrarily large amount of attention, for no verifiable reasons. The ill-informed fears of space junk and such are given equal weight, even though many more sources are represented, and worst of all, the consensus of a far larger number of sources who are far more important than the odd news blogger here and there are also treated as about equal to that. "It is only the beginning of an wave that will grow with time" is just as arbitrary as "Bah, not notable, because I say so". Why are none of these judgements being made on the basis of the quality and quantity of sources? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, to clarify; is the suggestion being made to:

1. keep the "In popular culture" section
2. remove the "In popular culture" section
3. something else

—Sladen (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Trivia sections says that this kind of dumping ground section should be integrated up into the context of the article, not thrown down at the bottom where nobody has to think much about it. The quantity of coverage is obviously greater than the Art topic, so it violates WP:WEIGHT to devote so much space to the art topic and so little to the Skoda ad. The Reactions section is just as much an In popular culture or Trivia dumping ground, by another name. You could re-title Reactions to Miscellaneous. The guideline says "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." The guideline goes on to say, "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." The Skoda content belongs up in the chronology, not at the bottom, and then after that is done, the rest of the dumping ground at the bottom should be integrated upwards into the main article.

Even if this structure is temporary, the due weight policy says that the quantity of attention given to the content under Marketing should be several times greater than Space debris, which, along with the Skoda ad, should be greater than art. A summary of Marketing deserves to be in the intro section, but none of the other lesser weight reactions.

A legitimate argument for some other proportioning and some other degree of prominence would cite sources and be based on their quality and quantity, not "because i say so". If your next question is going to be "But what exact wording would you like to see?" rest assured I won't reply. I just told you which edits I support: integrating the content up into the main article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

{{U|Dennis Bratland}}, thanks for the clarification regarding "support: integrating the content up into the main article." This is useful to understand. Based on re-reading several of the discussions on this Talk; page, the integrated approach does not (appear to) to have gained consensus on this specific article. Expect editors may appreciate feedback/suggestions on how to better integrate material within the framework and structure that has evolved. —Sladen (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you've decided as a group to stonewall, and for some reason you think this is a brilliant choice.

Have you noticed that the Marketing section contains irrelevant complaints about lost opportunities for science? The Space debris sections also contains these irrelevant comments about science, as well as unconnected complaints about crass displays of wealth. The reason these random bits of content are spread around is that Reactions is a misleading name for Miscellany or Trivia. As a stepping stone towards a better written article, it's fine. But to stonewall insisting that this is the ideal structure and to keep pushing every change back to this second-rate layout is not making any article better. None of you seem all that concerned for the poor writing in this part of the article, because it is, after all, the junk in the trunk. Who cares? It's where all the crap gets consigned.

So, yes, you and three other guys like it this way, but the broader consensus that it's poor layout has been expressed by many editors in WP:TRIVIA and WP:CSECTION and WP:WBA and elsewhere. A "dumping ground" section is a classic pitfall in article writing. Having four editors who like it does not change that and sooner or later it gets cleaned up and corrected. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Dennis Bratland, there is no WP:CABAL of editors who "think this is a brilliant choice"; we are really all keen to improve the article for our readers. Poor writing can be improved one small edit at a time; I did rewrite some bits of the lede section today, and I moved some text to more appropriate sections. Certainly the comments on scientific "lost opportunities" could be grouped differently or given less weight. Please do not be discouraged, and help the article on its path to balanced and crisp coverage of this unique and popular artifact. — JFG 03:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Must admit this ad is fun af! Well done Skoda. — JFG 00:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Poetry

To lighten the mood: THE SPACE ROADSTER

Elon, you’ve lost one of your cherry cars.
We doubt you miss it, though, for Starman steers it,
piercing the emptiness en route to Mars
and the ring of rocks beyond. What flyer fears it,

the absolute of space? Not this fake pilot!
Its gaze is black as the gaps between the stars,
and yet the worlds and suns seem to beguile it.
Who would have thought that dummies in red cars

could zip into earth orbit and keep going?
They flabbergasted us, your booster rockets
which settled like a pair of sparrows (owing
to bang-up engineering). In your pockets

were all the funds you needed for a test
that bested your most hopeful expectations.
Now car and mannequin are on a quest
to beat our wildest visualizations

as earth recedes with all its blues and whites
as Mars grows closer with its browns and coppers
as space becomes spectacular with lights
as we audacious apes become star-hoppers.

By Martin Elster, a composer and serves as percussionist with the Hartford Symphony Orchestra.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BatteryIncluded (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Padeanu, Adrian (February 14, 2018). "Skoda Releases Video Proof Of Sending Superb To Mars". Motor1.com. Retrieved February 15, 2018.

Infobox

• Special:PermanentLink/825837267 showing {{Infobox spaceflight}} + long image caption
• Special:PermanentLink/825838047 showing {{Infobox spacecraft instrument}} + short image caption
• Special:PermanentLink/825749128 showing request/response about extra fields for {{Infobox spacecraft instrument}}
• Special:Diff/825838047, relevant diff/removal/revert under discussion

Yesterday JFG changed the infobox to {{infobox spacecraft}} {{infobox spaceflight}}, which displays orbital parameters well. The image caption was also changed to something useful. I see that BatteryIncluded has now reverted to using {{infobox spacecraft instrument}} with the reason being that this is not a spacecraft. While I agree with that reasoning, simply using a particular infobox (one that's actually useful) does not imply that the car itself is a spacecraft, and I think we should be using {{infobox spacecraft}} {{infobox spaceflight}} (and also change the caption back to JFG's last edit). The arguments over whether this article is about a spacecraft or not could actually be sidestepped by treating the first stage and Roadster as a single entity. nagualdesign 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

My complaint is that the Spaceflight/Spacecraft templates actually describe the object it as a spacecraft, displaying "Spacecraft description". We discussed the spacecraft status extensively in the talk page, with consensus on that, and that the article will not be called XYZ (spacecraft). Why should the template do what we agreed will not be? I don't mind which image you attach to it. CHeers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes are mostly to give a brief summary, with the details left to the body of the article. Since the spacecraft infobox has more content, could we use it and add a footnote about what a spacecraft is? I also like the idea of listing it as the combined second stage and roadster. Between them, they collected and transmitted data, which is more than some early spacecraft did. Fcrary (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Guys, the correct infobox template is {{Infobox spaceflight}}, which documents a gazillion things that happen to have been launched into space. Not all of them are spacecraft. If there are certain elements that hint too much at this object being a "spacecraft", we can see how to remove them from view. Calling this a "spacecraft instrument" is woefully inadequate. I'm also not so sure about BatteryIncluded's assertion that we have consensus not to call this thing a spacecraft at all. Some editors have argued that a bunch of even more passive objects have been loosely called "spacecrafts" and nobody complained. What is the recently-launched Humanity Star for example? It is described as a "passive satellite" in the lead, and it sports a standard spaceflight infobox, which includes the title "Spacecraft properties" -- no big deal. This car is too polarizing for a simple cute payload. — JFG 23:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is my last comment on this subject as I am not going to war with any of the spaceflight regulars, who I came to respect over many years of work here. But am surprised to see some of you compromise your intellectual integrity and that of Misplaced Pages's by describing a dummy dead weight as a "spacecraft". We pulverized this horse to death, and evidently, some people still can't tell fantasy/desire from reality. The orbital parameters are already shown in the Instrument template, so it seems a very weak and sloppy excuse to say that the car was launched on a rocket, and a rocket is sort'a of a spacecraft, proof is they have cameras! Cameras! I think that Alice Gorman's comments (Art section) explains some of your reluctance to see the dead weight's physical function for what it is. Some see a marketing gimmick, some see art, some see junk, some see a spacecraft. You can't fight human nature, but you can be technically accurate, and honest. Your call. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit, describing the Roadster as a dummy payload, may help alleviate your concerns. — JFG 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The word "dummy" should be considered a skunked term for this entire article, and the other articles about the Falcon Heavy. There are plenty of alternative terms for both senses of "dummy" that using the word at all is unnecessary and requires over-explanation every time it's used. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "dummy" is by far the most commonly used term for this sort of thing, among people working in the field. "Boilerplate" is rarely used, and "test mass" isn't all that common either. If you're worried about confusion with the thing in the spacesuit, do we want to be obscure instead of ambiguous? Fcrary (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If we consistently use manequin to describe the 'passenger' and dummy payload to describe the car, it'll be fine. nagualdesign 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if we insist on using the word, then that convention is the next best thing to avoiding it altogether. But ballast, simulated mass, mass simulator, test mass, cargo, test cargo, simulated cargo, and boilerplate are all good options, so there's no reason to stubbornly cling to a potentially confusing word when we are not forced to do so. That's what skunked term means: just because, technically, you can it doesn't mean you should. If there were some evidence that we are losing information or forced into awkward sentences by avoiding the word, then you could justify it. But there is no argument of that kind. All downside, no upside. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with any one of those, as long as we stick to using only one. Test mass is a good option. nagualdesign 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions to amend the infobox contents

Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster

The Roadster in a parking orbit, prior to departing into a heliocentric orbit
Names	SpaceX Roadster Starman
Mission type	Test flight
Operator	SpaceX
COSPAR ID	2018-017A
SATCAT no.	43205
Spacecraft properties
Spacecraft type	Tesla Roadster mounted to a Falcon Heavy second stage
Manufacturer	Tesla and SpaceX
Launch mass	~1,300 kg (2,900 lb)
Start of mission
Launch date	February 6, 2018 (2018-02-06), 20:45 (UTC)
Rocket	Falcon Heavy FH-001
Launch site	Kennedy LC-39A
Orbital parameters
Reference system	Heliocentric
Eccentricity	0.26185
Perihelion altitude	0.9861 AU
Aphelion altitude	1.6779 AU
Inclination	1.093°
Period	1.537 year
Epoch	11 February 2018

Sorry, I didn't spot the "Spacecraft description" as I was focussing on the orbital parameters. As per my suggestion then, how about something like this (right)? Note that the mass of the second-stage will have to be added. nagualdesign 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have applied it in part, by getting a bit long-winded in the "spacecraft type" field. I have not yet added SpaceX as a co-manufacturer, because the article is about the car, and SpaceX just built the rocket stage and the payload attach fitting (PAF), although we could also consider that the camera rigging of the car is a SpaceX manufacturing add-on. Without the cameras, we would have no pictures, and probably no article. Thoughts? — JFG 00:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Given that the car is permanently attached, the article could be amended in places to better reflect that they are a single entity. For example, when NASA/JPL talk about "2018-017A" they're really talking about the whole shebang, not just the car. I think a lot of laypeople will imagine the car being alone in space, as per the SpaceX animation. nagualdesign 00:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made a number of small changes to the infobox (right) for the sake of brevity. If nobody disagrees please add it to the article as is. It's an early night for me. Cheers. nagualdesign 01:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done + in light of remarks by other editors, I've used the wording "mass simulator". — JFG 01:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it Aphelion or Apohelion? Mars article uses Aphelion. Google auto-corrects to Aphelion though there are some uses of Apohelion. Is it different spelling for planets and spacecraft, a mistake, or both acceptable? crandles (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The correct spelling is "aphelion". We need to code a special case in the template, because it takes an "apsis" suffix and builds the periapsis and apoapsis names from there, e.g. with suffix "-gee" we get "apogee" and "perigee", but with suffix "helion" the "o" must be elided when building "ap(o)helion". I'm a template editor, I'll look into it. — JFG 12:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well spotted, crandles. nagualdesign 15:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG 11:17, 17 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 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 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 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 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 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 11:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus' Tesla Roadster

Appears to be frequented by Miley Cyrus in the music video at , and behind the scenes at . 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 Misplaced Pages has an article on this topic. A Google search of "roadster space" Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Trajectory in sky

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)

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. 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. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:33, 23 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 09:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As JFG said, most articles on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

Summary of reactions in lede section

Dennis Bratland recently amended the last paragraph of the lede section, which describes reactions to the event, to state:

Aerospace and automotive industry analysts, and major media, said the decision to place a Tesla car into space, and the timing of the launch, was at least partly motivated by advertising and public relations considerations, and they lauded Musk for his record of visionary brand management and his unconventional use of new media. Other experts said that the car in space contributes to space debris, or that the result was a new kind of readymade art.

I found this was too long, and edited the text into a shorter version:

Advertising analysts lauded Musk's sense of brand management and effective use of new media for his decision to launch a Tesla Roadster into space. Some commenters were concerned that the car contributes to space debris, and others perceived it as a work of art.

Dennis reverted to his version, asking why the lead should be shortened, so let's discuss here.

1. The first sentence by Dennis is extremely long, and gives in my opinion too much prominence to superlatives about Musk's marketing coup. Surely, he was praised, but we should not give equal weight to those comments as to the description of the payload itself, or its orbit. Hence my trimming from four lines to roughly two. Also, looking at the citations from the "Marketing" section, which we are supposed to summarize here, I see actual praise from advertising trade magazines such as Advertising Age, not so much from "automotive industry experts"; that's why I mentioned just "advertising analysts", instead of the long-winded "aerospace and automotive industry analysts, and major media".
2. The "Other experts" part was rather vague, and gave too much prominence to the "readymade art" comparison. I rephrased it, but kept its length; I believe the prose flows better, and have reverted to my version of this sentence.

Opinions from other editors welcome. — JFG 03:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Shorter version seems better -- it's seems to me a bit undue emphasis for a minor thing for the longer version to be in the lede. More detail can go in the body, but not the lede. N2e (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• The shorter one gets the same point across in a lot less verbiage. It's bloated with too many details for the lead section. Do we really need to say "Aerospace and automotive industry analysts"? Or "major media"? (a weasel phrase that raises red flags about the whole sentence). I could go on, but that would bloat my response. -- GreenC 06:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Shorter is definitely better here. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Shorter - The article is not about Tesla marketing techniques. It can be mentioned briefly as we did in the beginning. Until an administrator addresses Dennis behavior and POV campaign, this is going to be a chronic issue. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Short and sweet. Wary of this becoming a WP:PILEON, but this is the WP:LEDE, not the article body—just needs to summarise and simplify what the reader may encounter later in the article, but not every single word. —Sladen (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• The notion that this article's lead is too large is obvious nonsense. That we can find room to mention the "name" of a mannequin (seriously?), or that the car was used for commuting, shows how far from overcrowded the intro is. More room could be made by leaving out mention of very trivial hot takes by single individuals, like the art thing and the space junk nothingburger. Just because it's not WP:FRINGE doesn't mean it is important enough to go in the lead. But the sources have been telling us what is important and that has been getting buried and minimized.

  I've been saying how lopsided the sources are, in quantity and quality, in the weight of the choice of a car as a PR stunt, vs any other reaction or commentary. It looks like I'm going to have to demonstrate that by tabulating them one by one, and we can see the numbers, as well as the names. The Wall Street Journal's straight news item on the launch was matter of fact, deadpan: ""The 230-foot rocket, which featured 27 engines with the combined thrust of some 18 Boeing Co. 747 jumbo jets, climbed into clear skies at 3:45 p.m. local time. It carried a Tesla roadster as a dummy payload and publicity stunt." When you stack names like the WSJ, NYT, CNN, BBC, Economist, AdWeek, AdAge, etc on one side, and count a dozen or more of them, and on the other side you have one blog post by a professor in Australia, or a hot take at The Verge, it creates a very stark picture. Maybe seeing this charted out in a table will help clarify why it's so wrong to give all these things equal weight.

  So hang on, I'll list all of them, give quotes, and the picture should be clear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"mention the "name" of a mannequin" → useful so the reader knows they are the right place per MOS:BOLDTITLE. "car was used for commuting" → virtually all artificial objects in space were designed for the purpose; this object is significant because it was designed for a different purpose, and had a working life doing that. —Sladen (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Just how dumb to you think readers are? They don't know which page they're on? We bold legitimate alternate names and useful redirects, but just because somebody made an ill-advised redirect does not mean putting it in the lead, and in bold, is mandatory. Starman (SpaceX) is not a harmful redirect, but it's not exactly the the best choice ever made.

Has anyone stopped and thought about the quantity of rhetorical effort is being expended here to defend the idea that a lead of 211 words is TOO LONG while a mere 32 fewer words, at 179 words, is JUST RIGHT. This discussion right here has spent 900 words and counting in order to denounce this "excessive" 32 words. Do you really think any objective person is going to look at this and believe you when you say these 32 words MUST go?

A bunch of editors don't like what the mainstream prestige media said about Elon Musk's publicity stunt. Don't like it. First they tried stop it from being mentioned at all, and when that didn't work, they shoved into a garbage dump at the bottom of the article, and sandbagged it with a lot of trivial hot takes, so that serious, legitimate industry observers were lumped in with Internet kooks and their woolly half-theories. Like i said, hang on and I'll post a complete list of all these sources and we can count them up. Until then the article will be safe from the threat of capsizing over these 32 words too many. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not about the number of your cherry-picked references. it is about your pervasive WP:SYNTHESIS to hijack this article to make it an imaginary Tesla ad (2018). BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Those false accusations are disruptive and uncivil. I’ve asked you to provide diffs of these nonsense claims, and you never do. Please limit your talk page posts to something productive, and if possible, factual. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of sources

Question: how much weight should be given to the point of view saying this was intended at least partially as marketing, a PR stunt, compared with it only being "whimsy", along with criticisms that the outcome could be space junk or biological contamination, etc.

This is probably about 90% complete. You could add more sources to any of the columns, but the proportions are about right. In the PR stunt column, 25 examples, 6 in the whimsy column, and 2 or 3 in the rest.

If you look carefully, you'll notice that several of "my" 'cherry picked' sources weren't chosen by me, other editors considered them reliable enough that they chose to cite them in the article. The editors just used these articles to cite other facts, and not counting the same sources as adding weight to the view that choosing a car was at least partially intended as a PR stunt. For example, two citations of Phys.org added by Drbogdan , the New Atlas citation added by GreenC , both Planetary Society and Deutsche Welle were added by BatteryIncluded , and The Verge citation added by Sladen . --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• The question I have is how much weight should be given to the content in the columns of this table. Does anyone have any opinions about how a neutral article would convey the information in the collection of sources above? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Dennis, can you please stop being disruptive. I've tried twice (12) to reduce the above table to a manageable size. The first attempt was actually to make it readable, as it's extremely difficult to read the way you've written it. If nobody can be arsed to try and read it, how do you expect anyone to care? My guess is that others will simply come along and refactor it, which you will revert, you'll just get a load of stick for spamming the talk page, then you'll claim that you're being stonewalled again. Take my advice, stop all this nonsense and try to engage in civil, good faith discussion. This will not end well.

My three word response to your 29 kilobyte post: More cherry picking. nagualdesign 06:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland, if your primary goal is to ensure accurate WP:WEIGHT to the article for these points, then why have you not advocated to add a section on the "Whimsy/Why not" motivation? Your table indicates it as the second most widely held view (assuming a lack of cherry picking). — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The earlier version of the article included two or three quotes of Elon Musk's tweets, and two or three sources that paraphrased the official reasons given by Musk and SpaceX for why the used a car and not concrete: "Why not?", "concrete is boring", "the silliest thing possible", etc. Originally I attempted to follow these assertions with counter claims by various sources that said that Musk's motivations were more than that, and his history of carefully timed media events added evidence that of course he wanted to use this to promote his brand. Nobody attacked him -- sources agreed his brand management and marketing are visionary and brilliant. But several editors couldn't stand to see that in proximity to Musk's words. A partial compromise was to include less of the official motives, to give it less weight.

But now, looking at the avalanche of serious media that discuss the PR stunt aspect of this, it's unavoidable. It's also clear that the "art" topic does not deserve equal space in the lead with the marketing topic. And it's clear that it was not merely "advertising media" which said it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

With respect to the suggestion that the sources above are cherry picked, I'd say that if they are, it would make it difficult to asses due weight. Is there any evidence that these are cherry picked? Can we see examples of sources that were left out? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have seen several other sources that referred to the whole thing as art , but the better question is why can't we cover all of them? It isn't like the article is over long, and all seem to be supported by at least some reliable sources. 'Marketing move' is already given increased prominence in the lede (both the old version and the proposed version above), and also in the body as the first thing discussed (and also the largest section in the body). The main issue to me seems to be the complete absence of Musk's stated reason for choosing that specific payload, not the weight of stuff currently in the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, we can cover all of them, but not with a "garbage dump" approach. As explained in WP:STRUCTURE, sticking a bunch of random stuff at the bottom of an article, calling it "Pop culture" or "Trivia" or "Reactions" or "Cultural impact" doesn't matter. Is miscellaneous. Off the wall spitballing like "readymade art" and "Kessler event" worries are near-fringe, and putting them at the bottom isn't so bad. Obviously, Musk/SpaceX's official motives should be explained. But the major media reaction to that is not "trivia" and doesn't belong with the other stuff. I would mention that Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website is significantly less important thn the WSJ, NYT, AP, etc. Apples and oranges.

It's also categorically different: the other things (space junk, contamination, excess display of wealth, art) are all results. They're after-the-fact, and none of them are about SpaceX's intentions. Nobody said SpaceX intended to make art or space junk. Two of these topics are different than the others: the "whimsy" motive, and the marketing motive. Most serious media say that marketing was an motive before the fact. It's not a criticism, it's a serious analysis. Musk's own words admit it: "I'm hopeful that people think that if we can send a Roadster to the asteroid belt, we could probably solve Model 3 production." What people think is behind the reasons for choosing a car as payload. That's PR. It belongs in a much more prominent place. Both 'whimsy' and PR belong in the lead. Both should be explained in detail near the top or in the first section of the article. It relates to pre-launch planning, so chronologically, that's where it should go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Media and others calling it a PR or marketing move are also 'reactions' and so fit fine where they are. We could structure it another way, sure, but most editors don't seem to have wanted it the other way. If you could put together a refactor of the page with the sections moved around (per your preference) as a userspace draft, that would make it much easier to understand what you mean. Then we could have a !vote on it I suppose. — Insertcleverphrasehere 08:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they are reactions -- "things said after the launch". But they are about a different topic. All of the others are about unintended consequences. Things SpaceX either didn't think of, or didn't care about. The serious media, not your Daily Callers or your Verges, but the ones with a serious reputation for fact checking and accuracy, the media of record, focused not on speculative unintended consequences, but the real motives for choosing a car. And they say those motives were not what SpaceX claims they are. And Musck said it on a conference call with Tesla investors the day after the launch. Why is he talking about SpaceX to Tesla investors? Because the cargo was a Tesla marketing stunt. He said he hoped it would influence attitudes. I will put together what I would like: it will be much like the version I mentioned, with the objective section expanded to cover more of the official motive and the marketing motive. The Reactions is fine, but with less 'marketing' because that will be up in Objectives. The lead should summarize the whimsy objective, and the marketing objective, but not mention the reactions. Something like this.

I'm hoping that this approach can gain some support now that we can see a side-by-side comparison of the quantity of source coverage on each topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The others could also be called "other people's interpretations of the 'unintended consequences'", I for one, wouldn't consider it as space junk, as it is not in earth orbit and therefore never going to get in the way of anything. The chances that it ever hits a planetary body are also infinitesimally small in the human scale timeframe, therefore these are also 'reactions' or at least can easily be interpreted as such. Once again it isn't a matter of something being 'wrong' but being editorial preference. As such, you'll need to get consensus for a change to a different style.

In your diff from the 12th Feb, "not merely a bit of fun, but rather as" seems like editorialising to me, or at the very least trying to beat the reader over the head with a shovel. Not a fan of that wording. There is probably some merit to including some variant of Musk stated that he chose the car as the payload because it was "something fun and without irreplaceable sentimental value". His choice was interpreted by many commentators as a marketing and public relations coup. in the lead. Not sure about the exact wording, but I personally could perhaps get behind something like that — Insertcleverphrasehere 09:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not committing to any specific word choice. I care about the weight given to article content reflecting the sources. The discussion about marketing belongs in the context of SpaceX saying the motive was merely their whimsical attitude. Musk said he was hoping it would reflect well on Tesla, a company ostensibly separate from SpaceX. Musk, and many sources, say the context of the Model 3’s troubles is connected to the Tesla product piggybacking on the Falcon’s fame. All of that context can be given appropriate weight with many different choices of wording.

The only context for the space junk stuff is to refute the misconception that it’s space junk and even if it is, using concrete wouldn’t have made any difference. The bio contamination issue has more scientific merit. The readymade art stuff has no context; it’s right out of left field and has not caught on accounting to our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Still working on a draft version. I'll probably just expand the current Marketing section with the sources above, and produce a draft where the same contents are reordered, as described above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Tesla Roadster launch

Since being summoned by bot to an earlier discussion, it has continued to bother me that this article is incorrectly titled. Every Tesla Roadster is Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster. The title tells me almost nothing. Why not call it what it is, Tesla Roadster launch? You’re welcome to refer to the previous no consensus vote to rename, but my idea was never brought up. TimTempleton 16:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think most Roadsters are owned by Tesla’s customers, not Musk. I guess the unsold inventory belongs to Tesla, of which Musk owns 25%. The launch event was the test of the Falcon Heavy; its purpose was to test the rocket. Calling it Tesla Roadster Launch implies the point was to get a car into space. The cargo was there to provide necessary mass for a valid rocket test. As to why the mass was a car and not a concrete block, that was some combination of “why not?” and publicly, depending on who is yelling it. A better title probably exists but it’s pointless to even try to get consensus for a new title until other issues are settled. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be the most notable part of the launch. Normally that would be the title. The current title is the equivalent of using the title Steve Jobs' iPhone for any notable incident related to the iPhone. TimTempleton 18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've carefully read about 40 articles about this (see above) and while they disagree about a lot of things, there is near-universal agreement across many sources that the most notable thing about the launch is the Falcon Heavy: it's capability, and that it was designed, built and launched by a single, privately owned company. Those who think launching a car into space is stupid or dangerous or merely a stunt still give SpaceX props for an extraordinary milestone in space technology. Maybe you're looking at different sources, but that's what I've seen. AdWeek did mention that including the car meant that the SpaceX launch would be covered in the automotive media, but that small addition was nothing compared to the coverage in all other media. There are separate articles about the historic Falcon Heavy test flight, and the Falcon Heavy. This article is only about the car. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This proposed title is a nonstarter, it implies that this article is about the launch itself, which is covered by Falcon Heavy test flight. — Insertcleverphrasehere 07:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My proposed title tells readers the article is specifically about the launching of the car into space, which this is exclusively about. I'm surprised that there's so much disagreement. This complements the Falcon Heavy test flight, just like a forked product article complements a company article. And my experience is that the car launch got way more attention than the Falcon payload. TimTempleton 19:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is not mostly about the rocket launch since it is about a specific car that was the payload for the launch. The best title for this article is Tesla Roadster in space.--Frmorrison (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Frmorrison. The launch and the Falcon components are covered elsewhere. Tesla Roadster in space is by far the best title. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

In any case, Tesla Roadster in space is better than the current title, which is very uninformative. TimTempleton 17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a thought – I would assume Elon Musk owns at least one other Roadster that he drives on the regulars, possibly with quite a bit of custom software (both for fun and alpha-testing) and maybe some James Bond buttons, since according to the press releases he's ever-so "whimsical." What I'm saying is that I followed a bot to comment on this article not guessing from the title that it would be about the stock car floating, Muskless, in space, even though I had followed that news story closely. Rename. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Coming this Summer: Muskless: In space no one can smell you scream!

He does. He still has his first Roadster -- the one he launched was a later model. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I too would vote for "Tesla Roadster in space". However, during the previous requested move discussion, this option didn't gain much consensus. A month has passed since then; is it worth trying again? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd probably support that title, but I feel it's way too early to try again. Wait 6 months. — JFG 18:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd support renaming still. What you proposed isn't a great title, but it's better than the current one and we're quickly approaching a WP:BIKESHED situation. I think most of us agree that the current title is bad, but there hasn't been enough support around a single proposal yet. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Unnecessary drama on the subject content brought no consensus for the name one month ago. Maybe we can proceed now with a cordial round. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not do a BOLD rename without an WP:RM, that includes notifications and time for resolution and community discussion. According to RM, BOLD renames are not allowed if there is reason to believe it would be controversial (which there is). Just making sure as you said "cordial round" which kind of sounds like on the side but maybe I am misinterpreting. -- GreenC 16:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of drama... I said to perform another RM. But I see Dennis Bertrand is back with his shenanigans to stop it and first change the contents to morph the article into Tesla ad (2018). As long as that troll is active here, expect no constructive discussion on the move. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Automobile articles
• Low-importance Automobile articles
• C-Class spaceflight articles
• Low-importance spaceflight articles
• WikiProject Spaceflight articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles