Talk:XCOR Lynx

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

• Here is a recent article from Parabolic Arc on Lynx: Lynx Development Proceeds Towards First Test Flight, 23 Feb 2011. Enjoy. N2e (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Current status?

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 parabolicarc.com or newspacewatch.com.

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?

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

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that 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)

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

• Space.com - Lynx Space Plane Taking Off: Q&A with XCOR Aerospace CEO Jeff Greason
• Popular Mechanics - XCOR Lynx: Don't Sleep on the Space Corvette
• Aviation Week - Rocket Test Paves Way For XCOR Lynx Flights
• Smithsonian Air & Space Magazine - The Lynx’s Leap
• Popular Mechanics XCOR Unveils Suborbital Space Vehicle
• The Planetary Society - Live at the Space Tech Expo with Bill Nye, Xcor and Zero-G
• BBC News - Rocket planes seek market share
• Engadget - XCOR's Lynx aims to enter space tourism business in 2010
• New Scientist - Rocket company offers $95,000 trips to space
• Yahoo News - XCOR Aerospace Announces Midland, Texas, R&D Headquarters
• CNET - Lynx
• Fox News - New rocket plane to begin space tourist launches in 2014
• Wired - You'd Look Sweet Upon the Seat of a Spaceship Built for Two
• New York Times - Space Tourism May Mean One Giant Leap for Researchers
• Los Angeles Times - Planetfest: Lynx vehicle offers a $95,000 trip to space
• Wall Street Journal - Economy Fare ( $100,000) Lifts Space-Tourism Race
• USA Today - Company seeks to capitalize on space tourism market
• The Globe and Mail - Bargain blast-off: Space tourism opens up
• Christian Science Monitor - Space tourism is ready for takeoff
• The Sydney Morning Herald - Private plane into space unveiled

AfD discussion is over; consensus was "Keep"

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

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 flightglobal.com 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 flightglobal.com 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 flightglobal.com 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:

Narrow discussion on lead sentence wording

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)

BRD: removal of existing sources rather than tagging for improvement

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)

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

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)