Talk:VSS Enterprise crash

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Aviation: Accidents C‑class

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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Spaceflight C‑class

	Spaceflight portal 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.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California C‑class

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving VSS Enterprise crash was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 October 2014.

Wikipedia

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

False information

Under the "Accident" section, line 6 and 7: "The pilot was transported to a hospital with serious injuries, while the co-pilot was killed.[6]" The URL reference 6 goes to a Spaceflight Now article that does not identify that the pilot was injured and the copilot had died.

Done

Proposed change

Not sure about this line: "The purpose of the flight was to test a redesigned rocket."

Perhaps it should read "rocket motor." ? Zedshort (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - @Zedshort:, in future, be bold! Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper!

What is the point of an article before anyone knows what has happened? Why not wait for at least a few months by which time there might be some facts to document? This sort of crap is not why I donated to Wikipedia today! 86.148.103.129 (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Nevertheless this is clearly a notable event and we will cover it sooner or later, so there is nothing wrong with covering it now as long as reliable sources are carefully used: there are plenty of facts here. And some clarification please: while you are busy making helpful remarks, could you maybe tell us exactly when it would be OK to write about this? You obviously know - is it seven days, or two months, or what, exactly? Finally, you should note that it's generally considered to be in bad taste to go on about one's charitable donations - to be honest, no-one gives a **** about your donation today ... or do you maybe want to show us the receipt too? Go on, you know you want to. It gives you special Criticism Rights, Expert Insight, and I Bought The Internet Permissions. Go for it. DBaK (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we do know what happened - there was a crash. What we don't know is why it happened. That will become apparent in the fullness of time.

Sometimes when an event occurs, it is instantly apparent that it will be notable enough to sustain an article, as in this case. Other times, it's not apparent, and the article gets created at a much later date. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would write a page about this event whether 'it's time' or not. It's possible there are already other independent pages about it on WP already, that's not unusual when something notable happens. Better a page started by an editor experienced in aviation crash pages than a well intentioned 'noob'.--220 of ^Borg 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is ridiculous that people find the need to create an article about so many news stories. This does not need its own article. It can go in a page about Virgin Galactic. Repeat: Wikipedia is not a newspaper! I would argue for the deletion of this page. Ksoth (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then - argue for the deletion of this page. Here is WP:AFD. On you go. (You're wrong, but I will look forward to seeing your arguments.) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. More importantly, the most relevant Wikipedia guidance is at Wikipedia:Notability (events), rather than WP:NOTNEWS. Arguing over the interpretation of the latter is the wrong approach. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the News

~~Right now there is~~There was an unfortunate alignment of this page's `In the News' listing with the image of the other rocket explosion. Makes it look like Spaceship 2 blew up very spectacularly. Which on re-checking has now been fixed, explosion replaced with baseballer. :-) 220 of ^Borg 22:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC) corrected 220 of ^Borg 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

Title: I suggest calling it an "accident" and not a "crash." Pending further details, reports are there was a catastrophic event in the air, breaking it up, then it fell. It did not crash into anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitolHillNeighbors (talk • contribs) 23:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request move "2014 Virgin Galactic crash" to "VSS Enterprise disaster"

I know that the accident only has one fatality and two people on board total, but considering that all other accidents involving spaceflight that have a page specifically dedicated to the accident; only two that I know of; the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia disasters have been termed "disaster" this seems like a valid argument. Also Considering that at least one of the two people is dead; making for a 1:2 fatality ratio; that ratio should qualify it as a disaster. Opinions? -NOTE: Also the first in air space related fatality since the Columbia, and the first space tourism-related death. Rather significant in space flight history; henceforth a "disaster."--Undescribed (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger and Columbia both had no survivors though, correct? IMO that, along with the quantities involved, makes them more 'disastrous'. However, if the media decides that it's a disaster, per WP:COMMONNAME we should probably call it that too. 72.224.172.14 (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 01 November 2014

It has been proposed in this section that VSS Enterprise crash be renamed and moved to Destruction of VSS Enterprise.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

2014 Virgin Galactic crash → Destruction of VSS Enterprise – this rocketplane has a name, it is "VSS Enterprise", so that should be reflected in the title. The vehicle is described as a total loss, and the crash is an aftereffect of the mid-air uncontrolled disassembly process 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

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.

*'''Support' (mostly)'' I feel it should be moved to "VSS Enterprise" and maybe keep a redirect from "2014 Virgin Galactic crash". My rationale is that we follow the naming of the Apollo 1 article. To be clearer, I don't feel that the title should contain any word such as or similar to "crash", "destruction", "tragedy", etc..., but rather just the official name of the craft. This is not an incident relevant to Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014, as this was a test flight using a new fuel mixture, and not a flight involved in normal operations. 68.71.70.33 (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose title doesnt follow normal convention, open to other suggestions but not "Destruction of VSS Enterprise". MilborneOne (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Destruction of VSS Enterprise" may sound-and appear, visually-to be some sort of Star Trek-related hoax. 72.224.172.14 (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I would prefer the title to be VSS Enterprise crash. This is CONSISTENT with the titles at Template:Aviation accidents and incidents in 2014. Stickee (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be acceptable to me -- I am the nominator -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with "VSS Enterprise crash". Use of the word "disaster" implies a high death toll, which is not the case here. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't use the word "disaster". I used the word "destruction". -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crash always comes across as a bit tabloid and it appears to have disintegrated rather than crashed into anything, perhaps VSS Enterprise accident as a suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]