Talk:Boeing Orbital Flight Test

Requested move discussion under way for SpX-DM1 and DM2

A discussion is under way at Talk:SpX-DM1#Requested move 27 February 2019 that also affects this article. Please participate in that discussion, after which this page and Boe-CFT will probably need to be renamed for consistency with whatever is decided. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2019

• Boe-OFT → Boeing Orbital Flight Test
• Boe-CFT → Boeing Crewed Flight Test

– While the missions may have been acronymically known as "Boe-OFT" and "Boe-CFT" internally by NASA, contemporary internal documentation now refers to Boeing by its full name without hyphens, designating the missions as "Boeing OFT" or "Orbital Flight Test", and "Boeing CFT" or "Crewed Flight Test" [1][2]. The full name of the missions would be both precise enough by Wikipedia's standards, and would be the commonly recognisable names. For the Boeing Orbital Test Flight, it is also the official name. For Boeing Crewed Test Flight, while NASA has recently opted to use "Crew" instead of "Crewed" [3], it seems the latter is more commonly used, with SpaceNews [4], Bloomberg [5], GeekWire [6], Houston Chronicle [7], and CNBC [8]. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 00:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and consistency with the recently agreed SpaceX demo moves. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment SpX and OA/Northrop's cargo mission articles use different naming conventions. It seems that consistency is not mandatory for these topics.
    SpX CRS-xx vs Cygnus Orb/OA/NG-xx -PSR B1937+21 (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The official designation is not necessarily the right name for a wiki article, as per WP:COMMONNAME and as noted by the consensus reached in Talk:SpX-DM1#Requested move 27 February 2019. The consistency aspect entails changing the "BOE" abbreviation to "Boeing". What follows should be the name used by a majority of reliable sources; there may well be an argument to be made for adding "Starliner" to the name, for example. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @PSR B1937+21: I'm simply going to copy and paste my comments from the Crew Dragon Demo discussion; "I've taken a glance at Spaceflight Now, and they used "SpaceX CRS-16" and "NG-10" for the latest CRS flights. I can imagine that editors have opted to use "Cygnus NG-10" instead, as it would be more specific and less confusing than simply "NG-10". NASASpaceFlight.com used "Cygnus NG-10", so it doesn't violate guidelines against "obscure or made-up names." – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Maybe I didn't make it fully clear. I support this specific renaming as well as your idea on CRS missions, but reject unnecessary consistency.@PhilipTerryGraham: PSR B1937+21 (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)