Talk:XCOR Lynx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Lynx (spacecraft))
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rocketry  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

March 2008[edit]

Since I've added some references and I as well as others have expanded and wikified the article, should some of the article issue tags at the beginning of the article be removed?PistolPete037 (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the "notability" and "wikify" tags, and replaced "unreferenced" with "refimprove". This means that the article is still missing references to a couple of sentences, would require some cleanup, and needs more articles linking to this one. Victao lopes (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential sources for Lynx[edit]

Current status?[edit]

There seems to be little in the way of hard facts on current status. Um, what is it? --Pete (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are asking at a fortuitous time. XCOR is heavy into the year-long process of the build of the first Lynx rocketplane right now, and they began a serious effort at openly communicating their progress during the next year just about two or three weeks ago, with a commitment to do five blog posts a week on the company blog about what's up with them. Those are appearing at XCOR Aerospace blog, five weekdays each week.
While that is a WP:primary source, and thus not the best as a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards), a little bit of searching around will no doubt find reliable source space media that are covering the XCOR Lynx build process. I recommend looking at or
In the meantime, do keep in mind that this is Wikipedia and anyone can edit! So why not take a stab at finding a source or two, and writing that prose for the article yourself, being sure to add a citation (or two, if needed) to support your statement(s). Ping me if you would like some help. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - I have an interest in the subject, but the article seems to be mainly press releases and little of substance. I'd be astonished if that Jan 2014 date for operations is met. --Pete (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. And I agree with you. In fact, I think it is clear now, per recent published info, that they are not on a glide path for first flight until the roughly year-long build effort (their words) is complete. So quite obviously, as soon as WP:RS are found, and editor interest is marshaled, the article does need updated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
We're not in the business of promoting fantasy. I think a couple of paragraphs on plans and a photo of activity to date - a partial test-firing - should suffice. If any reader wants more information we can point them towards the company's website, which is perhaps the most substantial part of the enterprise. --Pete (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Further to above, I've reviewed the blog, which purports to show bits and pieces of the finished vehicle. There are no photographs of anything resembling a body. Computer graphics and an off-the-shelf nosewheel do not make a concept into a spaceplane.
The most substantial bit of hardware on display is a small trailer with a fuel tank on it - supposedly the engine test stand. Really? One tests a spacecraft engine on something you tow behind your car?. The whole project is little but website and people in a garage, going by the actual evidence. I don't think that we as an encyclopaedia should lend credibility to this puffery. --Pete (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed, Wikipedia is not for promoting fantasy, but Wikipedia also does not allow original research; we editors don't get to look at photographs released on a company website and ascertain that "this type of engineering work is NOT development" while "this other type of work IS development."

Multiple reliable sources say the company is currently actively building the first prototype of this spaceplan. The company website says the same thing. NASA has signed some contracts for (future) suborbital spaceflights on this company. Customers have done the same. Advertisers have done the same.

This little spaceplane is WAY beyond mere "concept". At minimum, it is totally appropriate for Wikipedia to say it is "being developed". So, yes, the article needs a lot of improvement, but it is not merely a vaporware concept that we are talking about here. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to an actual photo of the craft? No. Just small, off-the-shelf parts and some CGI. The thing doesn't exist. I don't need an engineering degree to point out that the emperor has no spaceship. --Pete (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
(Uninvolved editor coming here from WT:SPACEFLIGHT) The absence of proof is not proof of absence. There are plenty of other possible explanations for a lack of photographs besides the hardware not existing, and you're going to need to present much stronger evidence if you wish to contest the sourced assertion that it is under development. --W. D. Graham 14:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going through the sources, and those that actually exist either come from one source - XCOR - or are obviously written based on a press release, such as the Popular Mechanics article. Without significant external sourcing, this looks very much to me like a deliberate attempt by someone - presumably XCOR - to boost the visibility of their project. Clearly the article needs a lot of work to reflect the actual status. Now, you're talking about absence of proof. Seems to me that if we don't have good sources, it doesn't matter if XCOR has a fleet of them ready to roll - we need sources, this being Wikipedia and not Popular Mechanics. Where are the non-XCOR sources showing that there is an actual vehicle being built? Do we run on press releases and promises? --Pete (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Further to above, I think it's pretty obvious that the article as it currently stands is poorly sourced, namely that far too much of it is based on primary sources, when there are good secondary sources available. WP:No Original Research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is our guiding light here:
  • Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
  • Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.
What I'm seeing in the list of thirty sources are thirteen from XCOR (manufacturer) or SXC (ticket sales). I think we can safely list XCOR and SXC as external sources and use the remaining secondary sources and any others that may come up. Some of the sources look very good, some not so much. There's a private blog, and a couple of dead links. We can talk about them on a case by case basis and refer to WP:RSN if need be. Anyone see any problems in rewriting the article to conform to wikipolicy? --Pete (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Where are we on improving the article?[edit]

NOTE: The user who has been commenting on this page as "Pete" is apparently the same user who has been making the contested edits to the page under the name User:Skyring. I see from looking at the source for some of the above comment that the posts are signed by "Pete"

I have several notes to make here about Pete's (User:Skyring's) edits on this article.

  • User:Skyring (Pete) came to this article, and made a bold edit. No foul there. Bold editing is encouraged.
    • Edit summary left was "2013-10-12T07:06:17‎ Skyring (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,603 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (Doesn't appear to be any actual vehicle. The thing is vapourware.)"
  • User:N2e (me) reverted the bold edit with the edit comment: " 2013-10-12T13:14:21‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,596 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (Undid revision 576824990 by Skyring (talk); no, the flight article is being built right now; ask for better sourcing if you wish, but its quite verifiable)"
  • User:Skyring (Pete) quickly reverted my edit, with the edit comment "2013-10-12T19:37:37‎ Skyring (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,839 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (The "Follow the build" blog shows a worker welding a test fixture. The main piece of equipment in the photo is a box trailer. If the thing doesn't exist, it's a concept. We don't call a windowframe a house.)" Here is the diff].
    • Three fouls here:
      • Starting an edit war
      • Failing to follow the ordinary process of Bold, Revert, Discuss in order to avoid disruptive editing. Allow a bit of time for the DISCUSSION to get to a consensus.
      • Looking at phtographs on a blog to determine Wikipedia article content: that is OR|orignal research, plain and simple.
  • User:N2e (me) reverted that single word added once again, this time explicitly asking Skyring to discuss this on the Talk page using the BRD process. Edit summary: "2013-10-13T01:39:48‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,828 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (revert edit by skyring; the spaceplane is, in fact, being developed. If you want to discuss this second reversion of your attempt to change the lede sentence, take it to the Talk page per WP:BRD and discuss it there)" Here is the [1].
  • User:Skyring (Pete) added the word "concept" again, for the third time. "2013-10-13T06:47:11‎ Skyring (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,836 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (The thing does not exist. We have no sources beyond puff.)" Here is the diff.
    • Again, this is a foul: failing to follow WP:BRD by failing to allow the D part of the process, Discussion, to work itself out to consensus on the Talk page.
  • User:Skyring (Pete) now also began to remove sourced statements in the article, that had citations. While he did indicate that the source was a deadlink, he removed the statements rather than tag the deadlink with a {{deadlink}} tag, which would non-disruptively allow other editors to help find a source for the statement in question.
    • A new class of foul: This is in direct violation of WP:DEADLINK which says "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."
  • User:N2e (me), in an attempt to prevent the article from losing sourced content,
    • undid one of Skyring's deletions with the edit comment "2013-10-13T13:46:22‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,204 bytes) (+128)‎ . . (Undid revision 576961086 by Skyring (talk); yes, it was sourced. Sourced by a source you removed several edits ago.)" (diff)
    • undid another of Skyring's deletions with the edit comment "2013-10-13T13:47:45‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,436 bytes) (+232)‎ . . (Undid revision 576960887 by Skyring (talk)undo removal of citation" (diff)
    • undid Skyring's THIRD attempt to say that the Lynx is merely a "concept" and not actually "in development", with the edit comment: "2013-10-13T13:49:18‎ N2e (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,428 bytes) (-8)‎ . . (Undid revision 576956682 by Skyring (talk); revert, per WP:BRD; this is being discussed on the Talk page, let's see what consensus develops there)" (diff)
  • Note: since this edit (nearly 24 hours ago) was my third revert of Skyring Pete's modification of the article to claim the Lynx is merely a concept, and not actually in development, I'm now out of the game as far as cleaning up after him, due to WP:3RR; so I have stayed away, and am not making edits to the article. I am, however, now documenting the entire sorry mess here on the Talk page, to help other helpful editors to be able to come in here and clean up the mess.
  • User:Skyring (Pete) came back once again and deleted the cited information. Here are the two edit summaries: "2013-10-13T15:00:08‎ Skyring (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,872 bytes) (-204)‎ . . (→‎Mark I Prototype: Unsourced)" and "2013-10-13T14:49:24‎ Skyring (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,076 bytes) (-607)‎ . . (As per talk)" Here is the diff.
  • User:Skyring (Pete) nominated the article for deletion. (where the first half dozen (uninvolved) editors to respond have all concluded the article should be a KEEP. One of them has provided a helpful list of something on the order of twenty sources for the claims that the Lynx spaceplane is notable.
  • User:Skyring (Pete) is also forum shopping: after failing to give a chance to develop a consensus for a few days on the article Talk page, Skyring initiated both a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then nearly immediately on the AfD "forum" itself. Once again, on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, every (uninvolved) editor who commented has suggested that sources based on press releases in the trade press are fine as sources, if the source (newspaper, business journal, etc.) are considered reliable sources themselves.

So with User:Skyring (Pete) having received no shred of support for his disruptive actions from other editors, either on this article Talk page, nor in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, nor on the AfD nomination after almost a full day has passed, the article content at present is goofed up.

Moreover, the article editing process has been thoroughly disrupted.

  • The article has had some sourced material removed because the citations were deadlinks, outside of Wikipedia recommended process, and despite some of those sources linking to US government servers that may be down due to the current partial government shutdown.
  • There are also no tags on those (now missing) deadlinks offering other editors the (polite) notice to try to find sources.
  • And the article says the Lynx is a "concept" rather than an actual spaceplane "in development", which is factually incorrect. (and Skyring has been told this by over a half dozen people now).

Best course of action: Skyring/Pete should clean his mess up.

Second best course of action: some other uninvolved editor should come in here and clean it up, picking up after Pete, because I've already reverted Skying Pete three times in edits with explicitly good faith edit summaries, and am thus unable to continue trying to clean up his edits.

I do not intend to take Skyring/Pete to ANI based on his disruptive behavior to this point. But I did want to leave a careful record of the mess, above, to enable other editors to see what has been going on, and get involved to help clean up the mess from the disruptive editing. N2e (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I goofed with the AfD and I'll accept the severe
Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.
ing offered by a couple of editors. N2e, rather than engage in an edit war, it would have been more helpful if you had discussed the concerns I first raised above. I'll accept that you may have been confused by my account name, but still…
Let's look at where we are. We've got a lot of good secondary sources for the project. I'm regarding sources from XCOR as unduly (though understandably) optimistic. They have been giving a timetable for test flights and operations that has pretty much been "Real Soon Now" for several years. Looking closely at their site, they don't actually have a spaceplane, but they claim "It will undergo a flight test program beginning in 2013."[2] It's now mid-October and in their "build blog", the only pieces of flight hardware they have identified as such are a nosewheel and a hand-sanded nosecone. Maybe there's more out of sight and they are going to bring it together for a big Christmas surprise, but going by the rest of the site, where every small progress is breathlessly announced, I don't think so. My guess is that the various items of flight hardware - main gear, wings, body and so on - will each be displayed with fanfare as they arrive and there will be proud photographs of the assembled vehicle months before we see daylight under the wheels. These things don't happen in a matter of days or weeks. They haven't yet, going by the company's own progress announcements, and I wouldn't expect them to change the way they do things just to meet an artificial deadline.
I think, in line with existing wikipolicy, we should not base too much of our article on the primary sources of the build company. That's the basis of my concern - that our article reads too much like the Lynx project is an existing vehicle, almost ready to go. Our article talks about commercial operations beginning in early 2015. We've been doing this for a while:
  • March 2008: The Lynx is expected to be flying by 2010.[3]
  • January 2010: The Lynx is currently scheduled to have its first flight in 2010. [4]
  • July 2011: A Lynx prototype called Mark I is expected to perform its first test flight in early 2011, followed with a flight of the Mark II production model nine to eighteen months after.[5]
  • March 2013: A Lynx prototype called Mark I is expected to perform its first test flight in late 2012, followed with a flight of the Mark II production model nine to eighteen months after.[6]
  • October 2013: A Lynx prototype called Mark I is expected to perform its first test flight in 2013, followed with a flight of the Mark II production model nine to eighteen months after.[7]
Clearly, this hasn't been an article our readers can rely on for accurate information. I think we should be more measured in what we claim, use only good secondary sources, and not succumb to space cowboy enthusiasm. It may be, like a great many other similar ventures, this thing never gets off the ground and all we've been doing is helping XCOR sell tickets. I'll conclude with a quote from one of the secondary sources we list:
XCOR president Jeff Greason says he hopes to see "air under the wheels" on the first test flights of the Lynx by the end of 2012. The flight test program will last 12 to 18 months beyond that. "That six months' uncertainty is just based on stuff that we don't know of that will come up [and] that we have to deal with," Searfoss says.[8] That's a lot more than "six months' uncertainty", as we are now ten months beyond the date Searfoss confidently mentioned, let alone beginning commercial operations.
N2e, you've been pushing this flight of fancy since July 2008. What's going on? --Pete (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The {{trout}}(s) you (Skyring/Pete) should receive for this disruption of the editing process go well beyond the AfD you put on the article. The entire process of you entering into an edit war rather than enter the WP:BRD process to Discuss it on the Talk page without your new changes being left in the article is quite troutworthy. And some administrator's would sanction you for it.
Moreover, you (Skyring/Pete) appear to want to change the subject, by going to an ad hominem attack on me, rather than discuss the substantive topic. You did the same thing on USer:WDGraham when he also did not support all of your changes to the article (see above). He gave up the dialogue with you with the view that you may be a troll. I'm not quite there yet, but am open to the possibility.
On the article content, I've made two very small points:
  • This spaceplane under development is not a concept. It is well beyond that, as shown by multiple notable sources, and a unanimous set of editors who have weighed in on the matter, in each of the several forums you have taken it to.
  • You should not have removed the cited content and the sources that you did from the article. Especially, you should not have left them removed while a WP:BRD discussion is going on on the Talk page.
As of right now (17 Oct, about 13:00 UTC), you still have not cleaned those up to allow the BRD to proceed more neutrally.
As to your particular allegations about me, which is definitely a case of you not assuming good faith, you are incorrect. I have not been "pushing this flight of fancy since 2008." My first edit on this article was the removal of a bunch of unsourced info in 2008. My next substantive edit was in December 2010, where I did attempt to make some edits to improve the article over a period of three months. Much of the added text during that time was the addition of citations. I'm happy to stand by my edits. Since early 2011, nearly all of the growth of this article has occurred by other editors, and my changes to it have been quite marginal. Don't change the challenges to your disruptive editing to an attach on the editor discussing it with you. (and this entire paragraph is an example of why it disrupts civil editor dialogue and is a waste of time (for me); for you, it may be less of a waste of time to the extent it is successful in diverting the conversation from article content and your behavior to some other subject that you'd prefer to have it be about.)
Please clean up your mess in the article, cut the personal attacks, don't chase off other editors who join the discussion with trollish behavior, and THEN we can have the ordinary civil discussion on this Talk page that Wikipedia is built on. N2e (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

A "small sampling" of sources (copied from the AfD page)[edit]

One editor who commented on the AfD page has helpfully provided a "small sampling" of the many sources for this notable spaceplane. I'll insert that comment below: N2e (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep A simple Google search reveals literally dozens (if not hundreds) of reliable sources about this article's topic. Here's just a small sampling: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

List of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability

AfD discussion is over; consensus was "Keep"[edit]

The AfD nomination for this article, started by Skyring/Pete as part of an editing dispute above, has been closed, with a resolution of Keep. There was unanimity amongst all eight (8) uninvolved editors who weighed in. Several suggested that the article should never have been put up for AfD, or that it was spillover from an editing dispute "simply to spite some of those other participating editors."

Now, back to improving the encyclopedia. N2e (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

BRD: "concept" or "spaceplane" in the lede sentence[edit]

Now that the AfD is behind us, let's get back to improving the article.

User:Skyring (aka "Pete") made a Bold edit on 12 Oct and changed the descriptive noun in the lede sentence, from "spaceplane" to "concept".

I would like to bring the matter to this Talk page for discussion, per WP:BRD process.

To date, in all of the phosphor spilled above in the previous editing dispute, three editors have weighed in on the matter.

  • User:N2e (me) argues that the Lynx is a spaceplane that is currently under development, and is actually in build at the current time, as supported by numerous notable references.
  • Skyring/Pete believes it is merely a concept, has argued that the Lynx is merely a vaporware concept,, has vigorously defended that position, and has not removed his edit from the article mainspace in the past week.
  • User:WDGraham put forth an argument against the vaporware concept position of Skyring/Pete: "you're going to need to present much stronger evidence if you wish to contest the sourced assertion that it is under development."

Let's get this discussion continued now that the previous drama is over, and get the article improved. What do other editors think? N2e (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously not just a concept, but a spaceplane under development. Lots of metal bent, and firm contracts in place to finish the remaining bits. As to sourcing, it has about the same primary/secondary mix as SpaceShipTwo, another heavily hyped developmental spaceplane. (Curious what else Pete would consider a "concept". Perhaps many of Interorbital Systems' designs, such as Neptune?) --IanOsgood (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"Lots of metal bent". "firm contracts in place". I'm interested in sources for this. Do you have any? Primary sourcing is of limited use in Wikipedia - the relevant policy is given above. Just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make it wikipolicy, especially not such a fundamental one. SpaceShip Two is a good comparison. It exists, it has flown, we have some excellent sources. As opposed to this fantasy craft. My idea of a "concept" is something that exists in a conceptual sense. HTH. --Pete (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Primary sources are entirely appropriate for describing something. It's only when it comes to establishing notability, that they are unacceptable. As the Lynx is actually under construction - and the establishment of such is something for which primary sources are entirely appropriate - "concept" is an inappropriate description. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If you could quote wikipolicy, Bushranger, rather than pluck it from the air, I would feel more comfortable in your pronouncements. Nor have you supplied the sources for which I asked earlier, reducing the amount of confidence I place in you.
Now, I may be quite wrong, but the scenario I'm working on is that the spaceship Lynx has no actual existence beyond models and drawings and a few parts, and that the company desperately needs the credibility supplied by Wikipedia to attract investors and paying customers to continue work. Most spacecraft concepts never fly, and I can't see why this particular one should be any different. Unless, of course, we are to take the company supposedly building the thing at face value, which in my opinion goes against wikipolicy. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. Does anybody have a strong reluctance to discuss primary sources here on this talk page? If so, why? --Pete (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I've used wording similar to that referenced above. Calling the thing a program is accurate and doesn't imply that there is any actual flight article in existence. --Pete (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is policy; the consensus is that WP:PRIMARY, also policy, can be used for things like this. And per your own quote above, primary sources are just fine as long as they are not intrepreted: "we are building" does not require interpretation to say "it is being built"; indeed, it's intrepration (which could be taken as WP:OR itself) to say "the company says it's building this - but we can't say they are"! As for third-party sources, here's the Midland Reporter-Telegram: "XCOR is currently working on the vehicle’s cockpit and wings". Frankly, Pete, your attitude here, whether you intend it or not, comes across very much as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Again, skip the personal discussion and stick to wikipolicy. Please.
Of course, Xcor can claim all sorts of things, and we can, as earlier noted, take them at face value. Needs no interpretation to take press releases as gospel. Just a certain amount of gullibility. Now, it's policy not to base most of an article on primary sources, and I'm looking to follow policy here. Replacing primary sources with reliable and reputable secondary sources should be something we are all working towards, yeah? If you are defending primary sources because there are no secondaries, I'm inclined to ask why. If we can replace primary sources with secondaries, then that's excellent. --Pete (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the Midland Reporter article, the main thrust of it is that XCOR may move from Mojave to Midland. "XCOR is currently working on the vehicle’s cockpit and wings" could mean anything - doesn't mean that they actually have hardware, does it? They might be conducting 1/60 scale model wind tunnel tests, or working on instrument placement. Doesn't sound like the reporter actually got to examine any hardware. Sounds more like he talked to Andrew Nelson over the phone. The Midland Reporter has some words to say on the company's plan to move, now delayed for over a year. More pie in the sky? Seriously, what I'd like to see are secondary sources talking about the flight article's state of progress. That'd be nice instead of the hints and whispers we have now. We could use that sort of material without qualms. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
If you are defending primary sources because there are no secondaries, I'm inclined to ask why. You answered your own question, right there. And discarding information in sources (in this case, a secondary source) because you don't believe what the source says to be true (which is, in fact, what you are doing) is WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
In view of wikipolicy, when there are no secondary sources, we need to be extremely careful of how we use primary sources. Are you saying that we should use primary sources without question? As for your other comment, could you explain exactly what you're getting at, please? --Pete (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
"Lots of metal bent": mostly the engines, arguably more mature than the hybrid engine used on SpaceShipTwo. Not surprising: XCOR is primarily an engine company whereas Virgin Galactic/Scaled Composites is primarily an airframe company. I presume you aren't arguing this point, as there are plenty of photos in the secondary sources.
"Firm contracts in place": for example from the Air&Space article above: "Designed by XCOR engineers and being built by AdamWorks, a composite-structures company in Centennial, Colorado, the cockpit is a pressurized, carbon fiber vessel that fits inside the Lynx’s outer hull." And the fuselage itself was delivered in 2012, according to the Feb 2012 article, with other parts like wings and strakes ordered and awaiting delivery.
The conclusion I draw is that the Lynx is far from a concept and well into development and integration, albeit further behind than SpaceShipTwo. --IanOsgood (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The engines look good, and we have excellent secondary sources for them. But engines do not make a spaceplane. That's a far bigger job. Hmmm, not sure that the claimed fabrication of the test article cockpit counts as "firm contracts in place", but I'll let that slide as editorial hyperbole. The reference isn't used as a source, and if the fuselage was delivered last year, where is it? Xcor proudly shows off the nosewheel, but doesn't photograph the fuselage? That sounds fishy. I'm not defending "concept", BTW, I just don't want our language to give the impression the project actually has a spaceplane in existence and it's just being tweaked a bit. Clearly the project is not at that stage. --Pete (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The reference isn't used as a source - WP:SOFIXIT; if the fuselage was delivered last year, where is it? Xcor proudly shows off the nosewheel, but doesn't photograph the fuselage? That sounds fishy. - it's WP:SYNTH to claim it doesn't exist based on that. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm asking "where is it?" --Pete (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of how you phrase it, the implication is that the article can't use the sources that say it exists. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No. Your inference is incorrect and certainly not my implication. But you intrigue me. Could you provide the sources for the spaceplane's existence? So far I don't see anything that says it exists as a finished product or even as collection of unassembled parts. Given that there are only two months left in the year, the thing would have to be reasonably well advanced for it to fly in 2013, which is what our article is claiming. --Pete (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Pete: "SpaceShip Two is a good comparison. It exists, it has flown..." ok then. At what point in SpaceShip Two's past did it move from "concept" to "under development", in your opinion? Keep in mind that Virgin Galactic also promised rides much sooner than is actually occurring; it barely has started its first test flights this year. --IanOsgood (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the distinction. Surely a concept can also be "under development"? What definitions for the phrases are you using that makes the terms mutually exclusive? --Pete (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
From this discussion, it appears the more knowledgeable editors (N2e, WDGraham) are offended by the term "concept" but are ok with "under development". So I'm asking whether that is ok with you. --IanOsgood (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian! If you could refrain from personal discussion, that would help our progress. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It appears that this specific discussion (this section only) may be able to be closed. It began after a WP:BOLD edit was made by Skyring/Pete to change the descriptive noun to "spaceplane concept" in the lede sentence, whereas it was previously just "spaceplane." (and for the record, continued to change it back several times after the WP:BRD was originally started.) That was reverted, per WP:BRD.

After extended discussion, there has been no consensus that "concept" is the correct descriptive noun. Moreover, several editors have weighed in that the Lynx is, in fact, a spaceplane that is under development, per sources. So, it seems to me, this particular discussion (in just this section) is over and should be archived as "no consensus."

However, it does now appear that Skyring/Pete has inserted another descriptive noun in the lede sentence to replace spaceplane: "program". If that stays, then fine. But if that is reverted (and I am thinking about it), then I would propose starting another BRD process on that change.

In any case, I think the ongoing debate about article improvement should go in another section. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is a form of words in the lead that doesn't give the erroneous impression that there is an actual spaceplane; the project is a long way from producing any flight vehicle. --Pete (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete. I'm beginning to think you want to make this difficult for all editors who want to work to improve this article. THIS section is about only one narrow topic: whether or not the revert of your change to the lede sentence, where you changed the descriptive noun to concept, should stand, or not stand. No consensus has emerged that the word concept should stay in the lede sentence. Thus, I suggest (please read me carefully) closing off this particular section, as this particular section was only about that particular BRD. The Bold edit was made. The Revert was done. The Discussion ensued, and no consensus is present to leave your changed noun in the article. Thus, THIS SECTION conversation should be closed off.
Having said that, I think their are myriad other things that could be talked about improving the article, including your most recent change to the lede sentence to say that the Lynx is a program. That is a fine discussion to have. But it is not about the topic of whether this particular BRD leaves the word concept in the lede sentence, so I believe it is best to have THAT DISCUSSION in another section of this Talk page, so as not to conflate the more narrow scope of THIS' section. That's all. Rather simple, really. N2e (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This is truly a Big Bang moment. I haven't encountered this unique form of talk page discussion before, and I don't think it will catch on. Editors talk about whatever they want to talk about, wherever and whenever they want to do so. Can't stop them, really. Precisely structured discussion is a major change to the usual way of doing things. IMHO.
Just quietly, but I gave up any defence of "concept" some time ago. I haven't been pushing for it in the article or here since 13 October. I done lost that battle. You're flogging a dead horse there. But I hear what you're saying, and I approve:

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well, that's great. We have one content dispute "amicably" (if arduously) decided, albeit with an edit war started over the repeated attempt by one editor to stick that word in the lede sentence, and leave it there, even while the Talk page discussion was progressing. The BRD process worked! Other editors joined in, and no consensus emerged to keep the change, so the change of the descriptive noun in the lede sentence to "concept" is now out of the article, with the original editor having agreed to it. (see paragraph immediately above). N2e (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Narrow discussion on lead sentence wording[edit]

What I'm looking for is a form of words in the lead that doesn't give the erroneous impression that there is an actual spaceplane. Clearly the project is past the conceptual stage - I was wrong there - but even rummaging through the company's own blog with daily updates and background material, there's not much more than the nosewheel (on 8 October) and continuing enthusiasm for the engines. There's a brief discussion about a strake, but whether it's a wing strake or a fuel tank baffle is unclear. The shape of the testing tank pictured doesn't look like it will fit in the designed wings. I also want to avoid any statement of guaranteed success. There's a lot of spacecraft concepts that are developed and even component-tested, but are never much more than bits and pieces and fancy graphics. To my mind, the lead should include the word "project" or similar to make it clear that there is no actual spaceplane. And there may never be one. When we see significant progress, we can change our wording to reflect this, as is the usual case for Wikipedia articles. --Pete (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does any of that matter? It is a vehicle that is under development, and that is something which should be more than sufficient for the lead sentence, paragraph, and section. I am beginning to think you have a very serious conflict of interest on this article that needs to be disclosed and that you need to review WP:TE a bit in terms of assuming bad faith on the part of other involved editors.
This article is about the vehicle, not the project. If anything, I find the word "project" to be out of place in the lead sentence and fails to address what this article is actually about. That it may just be a few random parts at the moment and otherwise just a bunch of engineering blueprints doesn't matter in the least. This is usual and typical for Wikipedia articles that discuss emerging engineering designs. No, "we" don't change the wording as the development of the vehicle progresses, nor in the royal we sense either. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I think an apology is in order for that "very serious conflict of interest" comment. Amusing, but wrong..
Indeed we - and I mean Wikipedia here - do change our wording on projects as they progress from concept to reality - or failure. Some of the recent aircraft articles began as "design" or "concept" and eventually became prototypes and then airliners. My concern - once again - is that we should not portray this project as representing an actual working vehicle. Not until it is. --Pete (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm strongly advocating the mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest is silly in the first place in the current community discussions about paid editing, so I guess some sort of apology is in place here. You definitely seem to have an axe to grind of some kind though, and that is what I'm sort of wondering about here... regardless of why you may have that attitude. It does seem to be you vs. the rest of wikipedia right now.
There is an engineering prototype/mockup of the vehicle that has already been built, and I see no reason to take at anything other than face value what XCOR has said that they have a vehicle under construction. That has been reported by reliable secondary sources and has nobody suggesting otherwise. In that sense, it is representing an actual vehicle, even if it isn't working. Proclaiming that it is just a "project" is misconstruing the point of the article and in fact promoting a point of view that it will never become anything other than just a concept. Even if that is the case, this article still isn't about the project but the vehicle. I fail to see why the article must be written in such a way that it suggests the vehicle is still imaginary. --Robert Horning (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I guess I'm strongly advocating the mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest is silly in the first place in the current community discussions about paid editing, so I guess some sort of apology is in place here. Um, was that an apology?
I don't have any axe to grind here. The simple fact is that a large chunk of the article is based on primary sources coming directly from the manufacturer. That's what struck me. When I look at the manufacturer's website, I find little of substance and a lot of hyperbole. We should tell the exact truth: that the spaceplane does not exist, except for a few parts. It may fly, it may not - we cannot say one way or the other. But the bottom line for me is that the article as written relies far too heavily on a single primary source: the manufacturer. That's not good wikipolicy on any level.
Calling something a project or a program does not mean it is illusory. We have the Apollo program as an example of a program that went from zero to hero in a decade, and the Dyna-Soar program, not so much. We describe both as programs, one in the title, one in the lead. As a one-time member of L5, I'm quite familiar with projects that sound fabulous, are superbly illustrated, planned to go operational in the near future - and unlikely ever to fly. We've been telling our readers that Lynx will fly within a year, and we've been doing it for five years now. I'd like to see a bit more cold honesty and a bit less hyperbole in our encyclopaedia. --Pete (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Concur with editor Robert Horning. The lede sentence currently, as of this moment, says that the "The Lynx is a suborbital horizontal-takeoff, horizontal-landing (HTHL), rocket-powered spaceplane program being developed by ..."
It is not a mere program, it is a spaceplane that is under development, per many sources. Even the article title says as much: it is currently "Lynx (spacecraft)", not "Lynx (development program)" or "Lynx (spacecraft development program)"
Skyring/Pete: if you want to have a Talk page discussion in good faith, you should not change the first sentence of the article lede to a particular point of view at the same time you are saying on the Talk page that you want to discuss it. I think you should remove your addition of the word program while the discussion is ongoing. If you do not, then it would be totally within standard, civil editing policy for another editor to do so, per WP:BRD, while the discussion is ongoing for the change, and pending any consensus being developed for your suggested change. N2e (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's be clear about your example here. The Apollo program is a completely different article from the Apollo (spacecraft). A good example is that the Apollo program is still in operation (admittedly very scaled back and only a very small handful of scientists remain.... but it still is a budget item for NASA), in spite of the fact that the spacecraft hasn't flown in decades. This is what I'm talking about, as this article is clearly about the spacecraft and not the accountants and manufacturing lines of that vehicle. This is what I'm talking about as to why it seems silly to even say this is a project but instead it should simply be called a spacecraft. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, well, maybe we should rename the article to reflect the nebulous state of the thing. Saying it's under construction is gilding the lily. We've got a nosewheel, which looks kinda off the shelf to me, some rocket engines with "Boeing" stamped on them and that's about it. These guys have taken ten million from a Texas town by promising to move there over a year ago - yet to happen - and another ten million plus in ticket sales for flights at least two years away - if you believe the ever-postponed dates the company is spouting. At what point do we stop promoting a scam? --Pete (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You chewed me out for suggesting that your POV was that this was utter nonsense, now you persist with that attitude? Please show *somebody* through a reliable source (aka some acknowledged aerospace expert, pundit, or even commercial spaceflight critic) that thinks any of the things you've just written above might even maybe or possibly be true. Especially that "Boeing" stamp on a rocket engine (I thought XCOR made their own engines). You seem to have some inside knowledge that existing reliable sources are not publishing so put up or shut up. BTW, they haven't taken $10 million from that Texas town.... those were just tax credits which will take decades to earn and require economic activity and a revenue stream to use. Delays for rocket vehicles are extremely common in the business, especially for commercial companies who are pushing for low-cost vehicles. Again, you are just spouting off utter nonsense here. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's all bullshit. Clearly there is some work being done. However, I look at the website and I don't see much more than engine tests. The Boeing logo is visible in the photos for the 15 October blog entry BTW. The company is trying to promote a view that they are more advanced than they actually are, IMO. Nor are they telling the whole truth. The spaceplane mockup shows a pair of seats, a big instrument panel, a big wraparound windscreen. Wow, straight out of Boy's Own Spaceplane! But the reality is that the cockpit will be inside a pressure capsule, the room inside will be quite cramped, especially when wearing pressure suits, and the view will be constrained by portholes in the cockpit structure. There's a reference to designing the composite so as to carry the loads around the windows. They don't say how big these viewports will be, but my guess is that if they aren't carrying any load and the pressure is intended to be comparable to 737 cabin, then we're not looking at huge slabs of glass. The sort of portholes we see on Spaceship One seem more realistic. 17 September shows an image of the cockpit. It's tiny.
The vehicle hasn't been assembled, let alone flown. Quite frankly, I would be astonished if it flies under its own power within a year of assembly, and going by the progress so far, assembly is going to be a long and complex affair. It's only a tiny thing and there's a lot to be crammed in. Life support, communications, avionics, control assemblies, batteries. There's a lot of testing to be done before sticking a pilot in, lighting the rockets and being confident the thing won't tumble. There's no escape system, so it has got to be safe - once you're in there, you are in it until it hits the ground.
The Caribbean ticket agents promoting "deep space" adventures also bother me when assessing the legitimacy of the venture. They are promising more than can be delivered. There's a lot of hyperbole. Once again, I'm concerned that we are unreservedly promoting something that's still a long way from reality, giving Xcor publicity and credibility that may not be justified. I'm particularly averse to just regurgitating the company line without the filter of reputable industry publishing. That's why I want to remove primary sources and obvious press releases from our article. We have good secondary sources - why not use them exclusively? Now, I think my concerns are legitimate, but you say - without the slightest attempt at refutation - that I am "spouting off utter nonsense." I don't see it that way, nor do I appreciate personal attacks. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Everything you have said here is synthesis and original research, both of which are contrary to well established policy (not even guidelines) on Wikipedia. Inferring anything like you've done here simply must be done through verifiable reliable sources, which you haven't done. To post anything like you are suggesting would also be injecting a point of view into this article that simply isn't even remotely backed by sources, thus violates WP:UNDUE. Again, I ask that you back anything you've said above up with a reliable source. So far, all I've seen is culling sources and disruptive behavior on this article... which does nothing to further the development of this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to add my own thoughts into the article! Sourcing, as you note, would be an issue. I'm sorry if you gained that impression - it certainly isn't my intention.
But I'd like your thoughts and comments on the points I raised above, thanks. --Pete (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since Skyring/Pete has not removed his non-consensus edit, and change of the descriptive noun in the lede sentence (from "spaceplane" to "spaceplane program")—which was requested of Skyring/Pete, for his consideration, above at 16:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)—I have removed the word "program" for now, per WP:BRD.

The lede sentence in the article space should stay as the article was, when it was stable for some time, prior to the recent flurry of edits, while the Talk page discussion is going on. I will, of course, support whatever consensus is developed here on the Talk page when this lede sentence discussion is over. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

No. We can work on the wording, but I'm not going to support any wording that suggests that the project is more advanced than it is. --Pete (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Skyring/Pete. I believe you are not in accord with Wikipedia policy by not complying with WP:BRD, and not leaving the article in the base state during the discussion. However, I will refuse to get into an edit war with you, and will complete a BRD discussion on your change. If you want to discuss, and discuss in good faith, you should not insist on your new edit—which was the addition of the word "program" into the lede sentence, which totally changed the descriptive noun that had been there for a long time—while the discussion is initiated and joined by other editors on the Talk page.
WP:BRD says it is precisely the other way around. You made a Bold edit; you were Reverted; then the Discussion is held while the article space remains as it was before the Bold edit.
I do not know why you do this—an you have now done it on more than one occasion—but is very disruptive to ordinary editing, and I'm guessing that you may be setting yourself up for sanction if you insist on continuing with the disruptive editing. N2e (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

To inform this discussion on whether a developmental aerospace article is a "concept", "program", or simply "under development", I did a survey of the ledes of other developmental launch system, spacecraft, and spaceplane articles:

  • Angara: "being developed"
  • Falcon Heavy: "being designed"
  • GSLV Mk III: "development project"
  • SLS: "being designed"
  • Orion: "planned"
  • Soyuz 2.1v: "proposed" (arguably out of date, since maiden launch is scheduled for the end of 2013!)
  • Tsyklon 4: "being developed"
  • Long March 5: "under development"
  • Pegasus II: "under development" (Stratolaunch only awarded the contract this year)
  • Dream Chaser: "being developed"
  • SpaceShipTwo: "under development"
  • Lynx (pre-edits): "under development"

The community standard appears to be to simply call the aerospace article "under development" or "being developed" without further qualifiers.

Contrast: the Interorbital Systems article has Neptune scheduled for first launch in 2011 with no developmental qualifiers whatsoever! I imagine this is the situation Skyring is trying to avoid. --IanOsgood (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the work. I've changed the wording to "under development". --Pete (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

BRD: removal of existing sources rather than tagging for improvement[edit]

There have been several edits in recent days where Skyring/Pete has deleted references in the article, merely because they are primary sources. My position on the best way to challenge such content is a bit different, and I will get back here to articulate that in the next day or so. But for now, set my opinion on that aside.

However, since more than one editor (above, in other sections of this Talk page) have told Skyring/Pete that WP policy on WP:Primary sources may be a bit more nuanced than merely "delete primary sources on sight", I believe that, at minimum, those WP:BOLD edits ought to be restored to the article while the discussion is joined, here on the Talk page.

So, in my view, for the best good faith discussion, it would be best if Skyring/Pete would restore those several deletions while the discussion is going on here. But if not, then some other editor, or myself, could do so to keep the article from losing major content while the discussion is being developed, and leave the article in the original (more sources) state while the BRD is progressing.

Beyond that, no more deletion of sources ought to occur while this discussion is ongoing. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

if you could put forward specific arguments, that would be helpful, N2e. You can't expect article improvement to come to a halt without giving a reason. A good reason, if it is to go against policy.
Multiple editors have noted that we have many secondary sources. My intention is to replace primary sources with secondary sources, and in the process identify which statements rely solely on primary sources. We can then look at these claims on a case by case basis, running them through WP:RSN if need be to get more eyes on contentious points.
I commenced discussion on this point some days ago, but you chose not to participate. If you want to commence another different stream on the same topic, that's fine. I guess. I'm beginning to think I've wandered into an episode of The Big Bang Theory. --Pete (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, secondary sources are preferred over primary sources, but primary sources are still acceptable as long as articles aren't primarily based on primary sources. I won't pretend to be a regular article of this article - I only discovered it after it came up at WP:RSN - however, I am beginning to wonder whether this is a conduct issue, and not a content issue. If so, the encyclopedia might be better off with Skyring/Pete topic banned from this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Widespread removal of primary sources to be substituted for secondary soruces for information which is factual in nature is simply boneheaded and a misapplication of the policy you are citing here. If anything, my experience is that the secondary sources tend to get such factual information wrong and is far less trustworthy than the primary sources. Opinions, impressions, and discussion of the reception of a particular topic can and indeed should be done with secondary sources, along with any kind of synthesis.... but that is a given too. None the less, I think you are going way overboard here with this crusade and need to scale things back, Skyring. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
That's fine, so far as it goes, but my concerns expressed earlier are that the material may not be "factual in nature" so much as speculation and puffery. A look at the company website shows a lot of hyperbole. "Your journey to deep space starts here," we are informed, but just how deep space is a suborbital hop? Not even Mercury claimed that, and their flights were longer and higher. For years the first flights have been "a few months away", but we're as far from that as ever. How much longer do we go on being an uncritical advertisement for a commercial enterprise? Secondly, again expressed earlier, I'm concerned at the number of high-quality links we are providing for this concern. Are we an encyclopaedia or a press release? --Pete (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
If you think this is all hyperbole and bullshit, find the sources which suggest that as well. I'm sure if this is a serious problem there would be plenty of reliable sources that would suggest such a POV. Jeff Greason has attended several conferences and meetings where the Lynx has been discussed where those vehicles which are vaporware have been mentioned numerous times as well. You have also made several other statements that presumably could be backed up with reliable sources as well (XCOR claiming to have flights in just a few months yet nothing has happened for several years... not that other companies like Virgin Galactic or SpaceX have been guilty of doing either). There are most definitely critics of private commercial spaceflight, so finding columns or writers who are critical of these companies is not impossible to find. Andy Pasztor is at least one very vocal critic that you might want to see if he has written anything about the Lynx. So far, I fail to see how your POV is even correct, much less that you can back any of it up with reliable sources? --Robert Horning (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "it's all hyperbole and bullshit". That's a very long stretch from what I actually said. Perhaps you could address the points I raise? Wikipolicy definitely frowns on the use of primary sources. Not to mention linkspam, and I direct editors to the policy on external links. --Pete (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You're confusing WP:REF with WP:EL. It's perfectly acceptable to cite an external link as a reference. In fact, all references must be external links. I suggest that you take a break from this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, no. I was thinking of external links here. I suggest that we work together to apply wikipolicy to the article. Stick to the rules, like. --Pete (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The guidelines on what to link to is here: WP:EL#What_to_link. When deciding what to link to, editors here should begin by asking themselves the following questions:
  1. Is the site content accessible to the reader?
  2. Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
  3. Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional?
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I've left a warning on Skyring/Pete's talk page regarding their edit-warring.[9] If Skyring/Pete continues edit-warring, please file a report at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or let me know at my talk page. Thanks.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll pass that directly along to the noticeboard. Get some more eyes on the thing. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. --Pete (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
and resolved. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Note on the core BRD discussion. While the discussion of what should eventually be done with the primary sources is a fine discussion to have, I started this section with a more narrow, preliminary, objective:

Should the multiple primary source citations that Skyring/Pete removed be out of the article, right now, while the Talk page discussion on the eventual resolution is going on?

I think not. To this point, only a day or so after the BRD discussion started, no support for the idea of having those source citations be removed, rather than tagged and discussed, seems to have emerged from any of the several editors who have weighed in. Unless such a consensus develops that the deleted citations should have been removed, then I or some other editor will add the deleted citations back to the article, per standard WP:BRD process. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Very happy to take the matter of sources to a more appropriate forum. Shine a spotlight on them. N2e, perhaps we could look at each disputed source individually? At the moment I'm looking to replace primary sources with secondary sources, in line with policy, and we've got a host of good secondary sources to choose from. If there's anything which demands a primary source, we need to look at it carefully. Again, in line with policy. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
That would be fine to discuss the sources one by one. But that conversation is in a different section of the Talk page.
This section is only about the BRD discussion. My position is, and has been, that the sources should have been returned to the article while the discussion is proceeding, in line with WP:BRD policy. Yours, to date, has been that a single editor (you) should be able to delete existing source citations, and then, even when challenged per BRD, those citations that had been in the article for months or years, should stay out of the article. That is why I started this discussion on the Talk page.
Now, six days on, as I look at this section above, it would appear that there has not been a consensus to support your position to delete the sources.
So the sources you have removed, should be returned to the article, while the discussion is proceeding.
Should you return the sources to the article, as they should have been even earlier, I will be very happy to enter into serious good faith discussion of each primary source you would like to remove, with you, or with any editor who wishes to do so. N2e (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a way of avoiding discussion on the main problem with this article, cobber. Again, happy to bump this up to get more eyes on it if you - or anyone else - tries to reinsert primary sources without a good reason. I don't mind if you have a different opinion, but you need to articulate it. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
No, not actually. Wikipedia practices like BRD have emerged over time to avoid disruption to the encyclopedia and the editing process. Had you not insisted on violating BRD, on three major occasions now (as documented above on this Talk page), a very great deal of volunteer editor energy and donation of time to Wikipedia could have been spent discussing ways to improve the article, rather than trying to stop, or cleaning up after, your repeated disruption to this particular article.
So the fact that there has been no consensus to support your removals, in this section, is quite relevant. As far as this BRD discussion goes, those sources should be returned. 'Now that you have clarified that you are unwilling to clean up your own mess, someone else will ultimately do it. But, in Wikipedia there is no deadline, so that will get done when it gets done—when some editor has the time and motivation to clean up after a disruptive editor.
And do note, all of the volunteer editor energy being used for that purpose, will be energy and time that won't be available to engaging with you on your discussion of whether 1/3 or 2/5, or 3/5, or what is "too high" a ratio of primary to secondary sources. Your disruptive behavior has derailed that possibility: as you've now been told by multiple editors in multiple fora, your serious misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH, and your "refusal to listen and/or Wikilayering using weasel-words when contradicted" (that is a quotation about you from another editor in one of the many places all over Wikipedia that your disruptive behavior is being discussed) has made that quite impossible, at least until you make some serious effort to change your pattern of behavior. There's been no sign of that to date, and certainly this particular BRD discussion in this section of the Lynx (spacecraft) article Talk page has been no exception. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. WP:NPA is a Wikipedia policy. WP:BRD is neither policy nor guideline. I've asked you several times now to refrain from making personal attacks. Likewise I've raised the issue of WP:PRIMARY as a major concern. But you don't want to address these issues. My feeling is that we should observe wikipolicy and that if we do so, we editors and the encyclopaedia itself will do very well because we've tried everything else over the years and come up with what we have now because it works. Follow the rules.
I had hoped that those regular editors of this and other related articles would find good secondary sources to replace the primary sources I identified as contrary to policy. I guess I'll have to do it myself. Fair enough. You - and others - may assist, if you wish. If there is a good reason why we must use a particular primary source, then raise it here on the talk page, please. Ignoring the problem won't make it vanish. --Pete (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Per the discussion above, there has been no consensus to support Skyring/Pete's deletion of these various sourced statements, nor has there been a consensus that no primary sources can be used in supporting various parts of aerospace-related articles.

Based on the lack of any consensus to support Skyring/Pete, I have endeavored to return the deleted material to the article just now. Will start another Talk page section below to discuss the use of primary sources going forward more generally. N2e (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Section for general arguments about article improvement, not related to either specific BRD above[edit]

Since it is rather easy for very specific BRD discussions to go haywire, when the topic broadens substantially beyond the narrow topic of the BRD, I'm starting this section for discussion of more general article improvement discussions.

If you have something to say about the particular topic of a particular BRD, then put your comment in the appropriate section above. But if just general discussion about myriad other things which might be done to improve the article, suggest that you please not conflate those comments with the more specific BRD discussions above. Thanks. And cheers. N2e (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

As a general discussion point, it would be nice to find some additional sources besides xcor's website and There are some additional sources that certainly could be added for verifiability, so there is a valid point to at least this idea on the surface. Some of the links mentioned in the AfD (also listed above) should be worked into the article in some fashion too, although many have been already. It would improve the quality of the article though.
It would be interesting to see if there can be any sources which describe the funding of this vehicle as well (especially any government money being used in any way or partnerships with NASA). I'm not saying that it has to be anything fancy, and just a note that it is privately financed by XCOR investors would be sufficient if that is all the information that can be found on the topic. Such discussions are mentioned for the Falcon 9 and SpaceshipTwo, so I don't think this is out of line to at least try to research.
Also, some mention of the Axe sweepstakes contest for future passengers of this vehicle would also be interesting, as there are a few reliable sources on that topic and it adds a bit of interesting flavor to this particular vehicle as well. I know it was mentioned in some of the space press when it happened, which is why I mention it. Anyway, just a few thoughts on some possible additions to this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Robert, totally agree. The article can be much better than it is, and reliable secondary sources are an important part of that. There is a large number of these sources above, in the section "A "small sampling" of sources (copied from the AfD page)", here. These were helpfully provided by one of the editors who commented on the AfD proposal last week. I don't know if any editor has gone through these sources yet to see if what you are looking for is in there. I think that several editors on this page have been spending their extra Wikipedia volunteer time responding to disruptive editing, policy discussions in multiple fora, AfD's, BRDs, and the like, trying to keep the article from getting changed too much beyond consensus in the short term. So that opportunity yet awaits the editor who wants to do it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple start dates[edit]

I've found three projected start dates within the article, and I've sourced them all with the useful Gleason interview discovered by Robert Horning - thanks, Bob! - using the ref name "Blistering hot", taken from the first colourful paragraph of an entertaining article. I've changed "early summer 2013" to "mid 2013", as per policy, feel free to find a more specific term. We seem to show the same launch prediction three times in the article, and in the past this has led to wildly different - and inaccurate - claims. Perhaps we could consolidate this stuff, so we just have one prediction, preferably coming from a good secondary source. So each time the program slips we can just slot in the new estimate. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"The build of the Lynx Mark I flight article Lynx Mark I began in mid 2013"[edit]

I am unable to parse the sentence that says, "The build of the Lynx Mark I flight article Lynx Mark I began in mid 2013...". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed—I removed three redundant words, and think it reads better now. N2e (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

BRD: "program" or "spaceplane" as the descriptive noun in the lede sentence[edit]

Following the completion of the previous BRD, where User:Skyring (aka "Pete") was unable to gain a consensus on changing the lede sentence descriptive noun from "spaceplane" to "concept" (originally changed by Skyring/Pete on 12 Oct–see earlier Talk page section for that discussion), Skyring/Pete has again made a Bold edit and changed the descriptive noun in the lede sentence, this time from "spaceplane" to "program."

Nothing wrong with the Bold edit; that is encouraged. But since the previous new change had just been overturned, and because many of us are actively discussing how the lede sentence might be improved, I believe that the base state of the article during the ongoing discussion ought to be the base state of the article, with "spaceplane" left, and "program" not inserted. So I reverted late yesterday to return the article to its base state. Skyring/Pete has now taken the first step toward an edit war by reverting my edit, and adding "program" back into the lede sentence. I don't want to do an edit war, so I'll take it here.

I would like to bring the matter to this Talk page for discussion, per WP:BRD process.

I believe the article should remain with the lede sentence as it was, for many months, prior to Skyring/Pete's initial attempt to modify the descriptive noun to "concept" on 12 Oct, and now to "program."

Is there a consensus present for the change to remain? Please weigh in below: be specific and provide a brief summary of your rationale. Thanks. N2e (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles on spacecraft do not have "program" in the lede. Space Shuttle, Soyuz (spacecraft), Space Shuttle orbiter This article seems solely focused on the spacecraft and does not contain a "historical arc" like Apollo program. --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
As noted elsewhere, I'm not wedded to "program". My concern is that the current wording makes it sound like the concept/project/program is furthere along than it actually is, going by a close reading of the company's own website. --Pete (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay then, it is clear now that there is no consensus to have the word "program" be the descriptive noun in the lede sentence. The descriptive noun in that sentence will remain, at least at the end of this particular BRD, "spaceplane" – just as it was prior to the Bold edit by Skyring/Pete.

Thank you everyone who participated. That's one more BRD completed, and only one more yet to go (currently) on this Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of Primary sources[edit]

With the conclusion of the BRD discussion above, entitled BRD: removal of existing sources rather than tagging for improvement, it is probably a good time to see if we cannot set down a few ideas that came out of that discussion.

Let me take a first pass at summarizing what I think are the ideas that are widely consistent with WP policy, and also with the many editors who weighed in on all the phosphor spilled in the discussions on this Talk page in recent weeks. Then, of course, let's discuss:

  • While primary sources are not preferred, and reliable secondary sources are always better, it is not the case that a primary source can never be used.
    • This is consistent with WP:PRIMARY, and also
    • consistent with the consensus in the discussion, above, in BRD: removal of existing sources rather than tagging for improvement
  • If a particular primary source is considered problematic, it is not the case that the source, and whatever material it purports to support should be, ipso facto, deleted from the article.
    • Instead, consider finding a secondary source, if possible, to support the statement.
    • Or tag the concerning primary source with {{primary source}} to allow some time for other editors to address the issue.
      • Consider bringing the particular instance to the Talk page.
    • In any case, the presence of a primary source citation does not justify an immediate deletion of the statement that was supported by the challenged primary source. For example, the fact that a primary source citation is used to support the statement that the Lynx has an Aluminum LOX tank, is no reason at all to immediately remove from the article that the Lynx has an aluminum LOX tank, as was done a few weeks ago.
    • If, after some time has passed with the primary source tagged with {{primary source}}, and if an editor then feels that the primary source is totally inappropriate for supporting the statement in question, please leave the statement in place, and tag it with {{citation needed}} to allow a bit of time for other editors to attempt to locate a source and get it cited.
    • Should a {{citation needed}} tag remain in place for a reasonable period of time, and no editor surfaces to do the work of finding a source to support the challenged statement, then by all means, delete the statement at that later time. Remember, in Wikipedia, WP:THEREISNODEADLINE, so it is okay to WP:CHILLOUT for a while and simply allow others to maybe fix it, or maybe not, and only later start deleting a lot of material.
  • If any case, to keep the article improvement civil, and a constructive joint project, if your Bold edit is reverted, enter willingly into a WP:BRD discussion on the Talk page, without starting an edit war.

In my view, if we all follow those few simple guidelines, the article can become much improved with minimal collateral damage to our fellow editors. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

From a policy perspective, I believe that N2e seems to have summed everything quite nicely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The arguments in favour the proposal appear to be well-founded in the policy WP:NATURALDIS. Those against moving were based on two propositions: 1) that including the manufacturer's name amounts to free advertising; but no policy was cited to support this proposition, which would clash with the naming of many other products (e.g. Ford Sierra, Atari Jaguar, Sega Saturn, Albin Vega); 2) that it contravenes WP:SPACENAME, but that is a project page not a Wikipedia guideline or policy.
The arguments in support of a move were therefore better grounded in policy, and were also supported by more editors. That amounts to a consensus to move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Lynx (spacecraft)XCOR LynxWP:NATURALDIS use natural disambiguation, which also allows a shorter title. (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. This isn't really a case of WP:NATURAL because "XCOR" (although surely "XCOR Aerospace" would be more correct) isn't actually part of the spacecraft's name but the name of the company associated with it. Although this format is used for aircraft, we don't typically use manufacturer names to disambiguate spacecraft and there is a prevailing consensus against doing so - for example the discussions which led to WP:SPACENAME and the move of SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft). --W. D. Graham 21:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "XCOR Lynx" is used in the real world [10][11], so it is a case of NATURALDIS. Further, whatever else it is, this is still an airplane, so WP:AVIMOS also applies, and "XCOR Lynx" complies with that. Also, the Mark I is not a spacecraft, it's only an aircraft (it doesn't breach the 100km limit). -- (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As pointed out above, the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument doesn't apply, as the Dragon isn't an aircraft - this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is already an advert for XCOR. If disambiguation is a problem, just call it Lynx spaceplane - there can't be more than one such project. I've just checked the daily "Follow the Build" blog on the XCOR site and nothing has been posted for nearly seven months. Have they called it a day? --Pete (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Considering this is an XCOR product, that doesn't make too much sense. If you wish to delete the article, feel free to nominate it to WP:AFD, but as the entire article is about an XCOR product, adding XCOR to the title does not increase promotion of it. It's not like it's a stadium whose naming rights were sold. Calling it "Lynx spaceplane" also does not decrease XCOR the "advert", as you put it, in the article, as it is a pagename change and not content change. -- (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That strikes me as a naïve but understandable view. I'm thinking of SEO here, where the title is indeed significant in brand visibility. Google looks at page names and rates them highly in pagerank calculations. The article already gives away a lot of valuable links through its use of primary sources. I don't know if this is a matter of paid editing, but I'm always wary of any of our articles which are written in such a way as to direct traffic back to a commercial website. --Pete (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Whose paid editing are you referring to? And if you feel that way, why haven't you been active in stripping the sponsor names from stadium articles, and tournament articles? As those are most certainly advertising, since they paid for the naming rights in order to promote their brand. -- (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I think at this point we are edging into the absurd. Thanks for your contribution. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Feel free to contribute to the various renaming requests that pop-up from time to time where there are requests to strip sponsor names from stadiums and sporting events are requested. -- (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Pete, the "the article is an advert for XCOR" argument got thoroughly trashed when you fought over it before. Please drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The WikiProject Aircraft standard is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming and by consensus says "The naming of aircraft articles should follow a standard format of manufacturer-designation-name". The argument that using the manufacturer's name is advertising is spurious. What would we call Boeing 747 or Cessna 172? - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider that Boeing and Cessna are well-established aircraft manufacturers. They don't need Wikipedia to boost their profile. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "2707" wouldn't make much sense unless you knew it was about a Boeing product. Most Boeing planes are simple numbers, so you'd need to indicate Boeing. This is the same situation with Cessna GA aircraft (ie. "152" isn't particularly illuminating unless you have Cessna attached) If you think any articles on products are not encyclopedic content, feel free to nominate all product articles for deletion. -- (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This isn't about "advertising". This is about how real-world aircraft, and aerospacecraft, are referred to in the literature, and how they are, by hammered-out and established WP:CONSENSUS, how aircraft (and aerospacecraft) have their pages titled on Wikipedia. The argument that it's somehow "advertising" has been debated and deflated before and is utterly spurious. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments: Spacecraft don't generally fall under WP:AIR's purview, as WP:ROCKETRY and WP:SPACEFLIGHT aren't connected directly to WP:AVIATION. That's a deliberate choice by several dominant editors of WP:ROCKETRY, who did not want to follow the conventions of WP:AIR, but to develop their own conventions. So we first need to determine what the vehicle really is, as the different projects have different naming conventions. Is this an aircraft that goes into space, like the X-15, or a spacecraft with aircraft features, such as the Space Shuttle? Once that's suitably determined from reliable sources, then applying the correct naming convention should be relatively easy. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:AIR is not WP:FILM: WPAIR covers unbuilt concepts, designs, and proposals as well as those which were actually constructed. If WP:SPACEFLIGHT only covers actual constructed products, then this would clearly fall within WP:AIR, and thus should follow WPAIR naming conventions. :) -BilCat (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting logic. :) Dream Chaser is a similar article. Of craft which have actually reached space, we have SpaceShipOne and North American X-15, both of which have broadly similar launch, flight, and recovery modes. We call SpaceShipOne a spacecraft even though it was registered as an aeroplane. I think that this is a wider question than can be settled here on this talk page, and really should be discussed at a higher level with wider input. Or is this an attempt to circumvent those "several dominant editors of WP:ROCKETRY" mentioned above? --Pete (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, because WP:ROCKETRY is now an all but dead project. (Also, SpaceShipOne is, like Concorde, a case of WP:COMMONNAME being so utterly dominant that the naming convention wouldn't apply.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pete, actually I was being facetious in response to your assertion that "It isn't anything at the moment", and so shouldn't be classed as a spacecraft. And I'm not trying to circumvent anyone, which is why I stated earlier that we should go with what reliable sources state the vehicle is. BR, I'm one who actually thinks the Concorde should not be an exception, as promoting Concordeism is not neutral, but that's an issue for elsewhere. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the smilies took care of the humour.:) My point about a wider discussion remains. I don't really know or care about whatever took place in ROCKETRY, but I don't think we should be setting topic-wide conventions here in one little article about a design that hasn't even flown. It would be better to just point to whatever guidelines we already have and use those. If they need changing, then have that discussion there. --Pete (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Understood on the :)s. There are already guideines for naming aircraft (WP:AIRNAME) and spacecraft (WP:SPACENAME) articles - what needs to be determined is which one apply to this article. If reliable sources made clear what type of vehicle the craft is, then it could be settled on this page. I was hoping we wouldn't need to have a topic-wide discussion at the project level on the issue. That would likely lead to an ugly turf war between the projects, and frankly I'm no longer interested in participating in that sort of discussion. There aren't that many aerospaceplanes compared to the number of pure aircraft anyway (a few dozen vs. over 10,000), so it's just not worth the grief. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, why not use the accepted boundary of space, the Kármán line to define the difference? The vast majority of those 10 000 aircraft wouldn't come within coo-ee of the boundary so it's still only a handful of craft that need be classified. If a craft reaches outer space it's a spacecraft, by definition. --Pete (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Under that condition, this airplane does not qualify, since the Mark II and III do not yet exist, and the Mark I does not breach that limit. -- (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Mark I doesn't exist yet either, so all three are in the same category there. I draw your attention to the discussion below, for comment, please. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Mark I is being constructed, so it has hardware. [12] -- (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • My logic on the situation is if it has wings/is a lifting body, it's an aircraft. If it's a capsule, it's not. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So there's a policy disconnect if some articles follow one naming rule and some another. Which is what we already have. Sloppy encyclopaediamanship. Judging by the increasing number of spaceplanes, real, planned or (like the Xerus) never built, it would be useful to debate the issue once and then follow a consensus guideline, rather than repeat this debate for every article now and to come and probably come up with inconsistent results, depending on which editors happen to be interested at the time. That applies regardless of which rule is eventually chosen. Do it once and be done with it. Justr sayin'. --Pete (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't understand the claims of 'advertising'. It makes perfect sense, per Bushranger, and is a good way to avoid the constructed parenthetical nonsense that is presently used. RGloucester 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The aircraft naming policy came about purely because with aircraft including the manufacturers name is commonplace with almost all aircraft, and has been since the beginning of aviation. This was a pure consolidation of Common Name matters. However I see no evidence that XCOR Lynx is being used as the common name for this craft. Reliable sources like, Air and Space magazine, NASA and others don't refer to it by Manufacturer Model naming conventions. We have Space Shuttle, Spaceship One, Spaceship Two, Buran and in fact every other spaceplane in the project (with the exception of only some of the US spaceplane concepts and actuals) called solely by their model, not by manufacturer and model. Canterbury Tail talk 00:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And the "aircraft naming policy" isn't a WP:POLICY. It's not really certain that it's a WP:GUIDELINE; all sorts of sometimes WP:MOS- and/or WP:AT-conflicting, highly specific, wikiproject-generated "naming convention" and "style guidance" WP:PROJPAGEs have been labelled with {{Guideline}} without any sort of formal proposal process. They've mostly been just grandfathered in under general assumptions of good faith and consensus, of course, but the more projects become insular and WP:OWNy, the less consensus-based some of these pages are. Many of them are full of WP:Specialist style fallacy problems.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm a big fan of natural disambiguation, and this seems like a perfect way to get rid of the parentheses. Obviously, we should only use natural disambiguation when the term is actually in natural use, but other editors have shown "XCOR Lynx" being used in Aviation Week, The Huffington Post, Gizmodo, Popular Mechanics, and soon. As for the issue of corporate advertising: sometimes Wikipedia's policies naturally produce an outcome that happens to help real-world organizations. XCOR is probably thrilled that this article exists, no matter what it's titled, but that doesn't stop us from writing it.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not at all swayed by the aircraft project's insistence on adding manufacturer names to aircraft (and by extension spacecraft) articles as some kind of "convention", but where it serves an obvious disambiguating purpose like this, it's clearly suitable. The real question is why Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is at such an awful title. Either Lockheed SR-71 or SR-71 Blackbird are preferable, but it should really be SR-71, since the DAB page presently at that name treats the [air|aero]plane as the primary topic anyway, all the others are cases of abbreviation of "State Road", and one thing named after the plane.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:26, 6 May 2014 (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.