Talk:BFR (rocket)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Official page and merge[edit]

SpaceX have a page for Starship spacex.com/starship from the page:

SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)

this mean BFR is no longer the collecive name for the system. this page should merge with Spacex Starship page. At alzayani (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

BFR cargo numbers[edit]

We will probably get an update later this month or in early August, let's see if there is something new about the cargo volume. --mfb (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Now mid-September...maybe OkayKenji (talk page) 13:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Change name to starship super heavy[edit]

Its Been almost a year since the name change Tabbywabby7738 (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"Starship and Super Heavy" and variations of it seems to get adopted more and more for a name of the combined system. spacex.com agrees: "Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR)". Starship and Super Heavy? Starship Super Heavy? --mfb (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I think so. I doubt that the planned SpaceX press conference on August 24th will involve another name change. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
If we're so close to a major update by SpaceX, we might as well wait a couple weeks, and conduct an RM after that. — JFG talk 02:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I remember on a SpaceX webcast saying “Starship Launch Systems”? But whichever way I agree with JFG and we should wait till the press conference. To be honest I think its been pretty unclear of what their naming system is but hopefully the press conference will clarify it. OkayKenji (talk page) 15:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah I think it is about time for this as well. "Starship and Super Heavy" (and in the lead; "Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR)") seems to be a routine enough name usage that it could be used for the overall system (agree with Mfb). I do agree that we should wait until after the next SpaceX press conference just to be safe (per JFG), but assuming there isn't a major terminology update, we should go ahead with the change. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's nearing time. SpaceX has been fairly consistent for approx. 10 months now, and fewer media are calling the stack of BOTH rockets the BFR. But I'm with the editors who said let's wait 'til after the 2019 unveil/update that is (now, currently) scheduled for 24 August. Making a solid proposal then would likely get good discussion, and likely consensus. Doing so now, would lead to a likely number of opposes just from some editors suggesting we wait another 8 days. N2e (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's past time to rename it. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, just for evidence purposes, the draft Environmental Assessment [1] released a few weeks ago for the vehicle(s) refers to them as either "Starship and Super Heavy" or "Starship/Super Heavy". "BFR" isn't used at all in the document. 82.16.49.231 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

That's now scheduled for mI'd September HurricaneMichael2018 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hop happened, Starship update will be September 28. I think we can move it before that, I expect a proposed move to get an easy consensus now. --mfb (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Poll[edit]

Informal poll to avoid a future move request die because of that: "Starship and Super Heavy", "Starship/Super Heavy", "Starship Super Heavy", "Starship-Super Heavy" or something else? All four are used frequently. Google finds about the same number of hits for the first one as for the others (which are all treated the same), although the second search includes hits like "Starship's Super Heavy". Personally I don't mind, but we can only have one main article name. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  • None of the above – Let's just wait until Musk's update. He is famous for changing naming schemes on a whim. — JFG talk 04:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The article title should change to official titles regardless of whether it is a whim or not. No point in having the wrong name for the article. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Daniel.Cardenas, we use the WP:COMMONNAME not the official name as titles for articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 01:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
And how do you determine common name? You use what name you like, because common name isn't BFR. All articles I've read on the subject for the past year have been using a different name. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that the article should be renamed, but now we can wait 6 more days. I'm highly confident that Musk will keep using the name used everywhere now, then we can move the article. If we get yet another name we can wait a week more and see how that is handled by the press. --mfb (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Daniel.Cardenas, Yeah. We are all pretty much in agreement that some sort of name change is in order, but the exact syntax of that name change isn't entirely clear. If you read above we pretty much all say this. Some variant of "Starship and Super Heavy", or something. However, splitting the article into one historical article, one on the "Super Heavy booster", and one on the "SpaceX Starship" might also be the best solution (or perhaps only 2). Consensus takes a while to build and we all don't want to jump the gun when a big dump of info is about to drop in the upcoming presentation that might make it more clear what approach we should take. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME :

Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.

This team did not follow this policy. Suggest the team comply with policy and stop making excuses. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As has been explained to you above, Elon Musk is scheduled to give an update on the project at the end of this week, and he is prone to making name changes. So it makes sense to wait just a few more days before attempting to decide how best to rename the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Leave as is, if we were to rename the article every time SpaceX released a new name, we'd never stop changing the name of the article. Best to leave the name alone until SpaceX figures out the name of the rocket. Jeb3Talk at me here 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Starship and Super Heavy considered separate[edit]

While we're patiently waiting for Musk's update, I have a feeling that SpaceX Starship will be the main subject, and that the Super Heavy booster will play a lesser role, being "only" here to boost the Starship on some mission profiles starting from Earth. Thus the BFR article treating them as a traditional two-stage rocket would be de-emphasized. The Starship is looking more and more like the Space Shuttle orbiter, adding SSTO capabilities, and Super Heavy plays the same role as the Shuttle's SRBs: without them the Shuttle could not lift itself from Earth's gravity field. In the Shuttle era, both the spacecraft and the boosters were re-usable, only the external tank was expended. The only issue was that the cost of refurbishment and re-use had been massively under-estimated. I wonder what my fellow rocketry enthusiasts think of this approach to the "rocket stack formerly known as BFR". Face-smile.svgJFG talk 18:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The BFR was presented by Musk as a combo, so Wikipedia followed. The way things are developing, and pending the press conference, I agree to separate them, but this article must remain as the "parent article", maybe under a different name. Rowan Forest (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The reality is that the "orbital launch vehicle" is a two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle, and necessarily includes both the first stage (Super Heavy) and the second stage (Starship). Super Heavy is not an orbital launch vehicle. Starship is not an orbital launch vehicle. So in my view, this article (renamed; soon I expect) will be. and should be, the main article.
Super Heavy does not have nearly enough info yet, nor rationale, for having it's own article at this time in Sept 2019. But this is a new world of launch vehicle development, where from the beginning, the manufacturer is separately flying the piece-parts of the launch stack, 'cause to realize full reusability, they simply have to fly like a new aircraft and be sure they can land 'em so they live to fly 'em again, and incrementally expand the flight envelope, of each stage separately as they learn how to land 'em best. So once a test article Super Heavy starts flight testing, we can revisit a separate article for that; no doubt it will be very notable, and easily pass WP:GNG at that time. Heck, it'll be the largest suborbital rocket ever flown when it starts VTVL testing, even without its orbital marriage partner 2nd-stage Starship on top. This approach is brand new for rocketry. Wikipedia will adjust and figure out how to best explicate it. N2e (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In the presentation, he did talk about it separately, but also both together is also simply listed as 'Starship' and he verbally referred to it as "The full stack". I think we could easily rename this article simply SpaceX Starship, or something similar, and simply discuss the Super Heavy booster within the article (perhaps more briefly and with a separate article if the entire article becomes unwieldy). In any case, I think I prefer that sort of name over something like "Starship and Super Heavy". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Resistance to change[edit]

Sigh. Things like this is why I don't contribute to Wikipedia much any more. [WP:OWN]. Anxietycello (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think anyone would object to splitting up the History section into subsections. It is a bit long. But a year-by-year chronology probably isn't the best way to do it. The development process is pretty chaotic (typical for SpaceX) and poorly documented. Maybe splitting it by incarnation (one Musk name change to another) or something else. Someone wanting to talk about the right way to do it, on the Talk page, isn't resistance to change. Fcrary (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Fcrary, I actually support a year-ish chronology. I think it makes the timeline of development a bit more clear. I'd support Anxiety's change in the absence of any serious factual errors in the chronology suggested. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I wasn't the one who reverted the change. I was just summarizing what happened and trying to get some consensus on how to split the section. But I do think we should avoid overlapping dates in the subsections. I think the original edit had things like "2017-2018" and "2018-2019" sections. Which subsection do you look in if you want to find out what happened in 2018? Fcrary (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
That was the point of the revert; so that it might be discussed and consensus achieved here. I agree with Fcrary that, for a complicated, dynamic and nuanced history of a launch vehicle like the Space 9-meter rocket, having subsections headings tied to specific narrow date ranges is not the way to go. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I like Anxiety's change. Although not perfect, it is better than nothing. Should be thought of section heading names, rather than correct summary. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge and rename?[edit]

We have way too many articles on this launch vehicle, fragmenting the info and confusing the reader. We can't really rename this article "Starship and Super Heavy" when we already have a separate article on SpaceX Starship. Unlike the ITS launch vehicle, which became a historical article as a result of a major redesign and name change, this article has continued the edit in parallel to the SpaceX Starship article since late last year. We don't need two articles, and if we did, those two articles would be SpaceX Starship, and Super Heavy (SpaceX Starship booster). For now I believe that the Super Heavy can be discussed in a section in a section in a single article names SpaceX Starship. But we really need to merge these two articles together under a single name. Who else is in support of merging? Any other things to consider? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 03:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Just rename. The related pages are extensive and I see no benefit of a merge. During this press conference, there was no new nomenclature announced and notably: the old name "BFR" was not even mentioned once (or in the last several months for that matter). IMO that finally closes the case for a move to an all-inclusive title for this page as the parent article of this launch system, as discussed in the section above. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Rowan Forest, Sure, but why do we need another article at SpaceX Starship at all? Why not just name this article SpaceX Starship? — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 04:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a merge is the way per "common name". The booster is just that. We way want to start a conversation under a different heading to start fresh. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
If we merge (I think we should - we can split out Super Heavy later), what do we do with the history part of BFR? Basically everything before they went to steel. The Starship article shouldn't go into detail about the carbon fiber history. Do we merge that into the ITS article, even though it wasn't called ITS any more? Do we merge ITS into BFR and cover the whole history here? --mfb (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Mfb, We keep it in the history section. It is part of the history of this vehicle, even prominently talked about in the presentation last night. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 18:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree can split out later. Agree merger is best. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd prefer to merge much of this with the ITS article and rename that. That is, have one single history article on the pre-Starship SpaceX concepts and one single article on the vehicle they are currently developing. Fcrary (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Bingo! -Rowan Forest (talk) 19:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Sure, we'll have a history section in Starship discussing earlier concepts, but it can be short and link to the ITS/BFR article. --mfb (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It is usual in all Wikiproject Spaceflight launch vehicle articles to have an article on the entire launch stack, the launch vehicle that transports payloads to orbit. This article (now named "BFR (rocket)" for historical reasons of SpaceX naming at the unveiling, and having been through many proposals to name the article something else) does that. I agree, time to mod the name now; but it should not get combined with an article on a super noteworthy and newsworthy single stage and spacecraft that is, quite simply, not a launch vehicle by itself (as in "single-stage-to-orbit", and more notably, is already flying and returning from suborbital flights in a flight test prgram and flight envelope expansion routine; that is what the SpaceX Starship article is about. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The term, BFR, no longer exists[edit]

Rename it "SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy Launch Vehicle". In the past we have used two names for the rocket and the spacecraft such as Mercury-Redstone Launch Vehicle while still having separate articles for Project Mercury, PGM-11 Redstone and Redstone (rocket family). user:mnw2000

What do you think of something shorter such as: "Starship Super Heavy Rocket" or just "Starship Super Heavy"? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the Mercury-Redstone was not the spacecraft. It was just the rocket. Specifically the variant of the Redstone which was developed for the Mercury project and to launch the Mercury capsule. Fcrary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You are correct. Whatever you call this article, it should not be 'BFR'. How about just making it a empty article called "Super Heavy and Starship" that points to the Super Heavy (rocket) and Starship (spacecraft)? user:mnw2000
For one thing, we don't have a "Starship (spacecraft)" article. We've got one called "SpaceX Starship" which begins with the sentence, "The SpaceX Starship is a fully reusable second stage and space vehicle under development as part of SpaceX's BFR launch vehicle." I think the part about BFR needs to go, but renaming that article isn't an option. It just went through a request for move discussion on that last month, and "SpaceX Starship" was the consensus. Whether or not to also have a separate article on Super Heavy is another question. But as far as this article goes, I would like to presence the history, as we did with ITS launch vehicle. Fcrary (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is not for merely reporting the current status of a SpaceX or other rocket company rocket. It is for explicating the project, the program, the vehicle, the funding, the design use cases, etc. of a launch vehicle. The History section should be preserved. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ways forward[edit]

Lets discuss some general concepts on ways to go forward without getting stuck on specific article names for moves.

One way forward I suggest is to move out the information on the outdated three-legged carbon fiber iteration (the age of BFR) into whatever article deals with the history and past tests. (We could turn the ITS launch vehicle article into the project's History hub?) Next, rename this parent article with a current common name that encompasses the booster. Then, we could bring in here the general current info from the SpaceX Starship article, and let the article "SpaceX Starship" deal with the current details. Rowan Forest (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We will have to back some things out of the BFR article. It has been (and is being, as we speak) edited to reflect the current specifications (e.g. 37 rather than 35 Raptors, payload capabilities, etc.) In the history article, we should probably describe it as it existed on November 2018 (when Mr. Musk changed the name) or at the time they shifted from carbon composite to steel. This would, however, be easier to agree on and coordinate if it weren't spread over multiple articles and talk pages. Can we also agree, as Rowan Forest suggested on the Starship talk page, to keep the discussion here? Fcrary (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Fcrary, can we just put everything before the name change/major redesign to steel in a subsection called 'BFR' under history? Then we can merge the rest of this article with the Starship one under the single name "SpaceX Starship". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 05:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
We could do that, but IMO there's too much information about the history of BFR here to be merged into any article about the current version of the system. My suggestion would be to move all the current stuff from this article to SpaceX Starship and/or SpaceX Super Heavy, and either leave the history here or, perhaps better, merge it with the ITS article under the name History of the SpaceX Starship–Super Heavy or similar. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosbif73, So essentially, treat the pre-stainless/namechange vehicle as a different vehicle? That's not really correct though and the Starship is merely an iterative design change from the BFR, not a different vehicle like the ITS was. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Rosbif73, I think we should merge, and if it really is too much information, then we simply fork it off into something like "SpaceX Starship development history". — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 10:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
... which would have the same end result, namely one Starship article and one Starship development history (i.e. BFR, or possibly ITS+BFR) article. The big question is which is the easiest and/or best way to get there (the secondary question being where the existing edit history ends up). Then, of course, there's the elephant in the room, that we haven't addressed here: Super Heavy! Rosbif73 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
What about Super Heavy? There is minimal information on it, but it is still part of the launch system so it is not being moved to the proposed History article. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The new, next-generation two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle of this company named SpaceX is a long and complicated one. SpaceX began developing Raptor, in earnest, in 2012. From 2013 to 2016 they advanced a number of concepts, and vehicle names, including the massive 12-meter diameter ITS launch vehicle in 2016. All of those were concepts. SpaceX admitted they could not afford to build the 12-meter ITS LV, and unveiled a new 9-meter design in 2017, one that "we can actually afford to build" Musk said. Now, two years into development of that LV (currently named Starship/Super Heavy on the SpaceX website), and with more (often) confusing changes to the descriptors used by SpaceX, they flown an initial test article, and completed the structure and aerodynamic surfaces of a second prototype, and the bulk of a third. This particular 9-meter LV is on a path to becoming one of the seminal launch vehicles in spaceflight history. We need an article on the launch vehicle (the full two-stage stack). It would be fine to have one also on "The evolution of SpaceX second generation launch vehicle" or some such if there is a consensus for that. But any launch vehicle, and any super notable rocket that is just a part of an LV, is quite likely to (justifiably) have a briefer summary of History about that particular LV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Nobody wants to delete the history. The point is that it just got a lot longer and it hijacks in volume the current information. The History can and will be preserved. The suggestion to move it to the ITS article is very advantageous, as it can become the parent article of the project's history of its development without restrains on size and details. For the fans that have been following this project, it seems intuitive to have separate articles for every major concept, but for Wikipedia purposes and readers, having one History article that keeps all iterations in context of each other, is invaluable and unambiguous. Of course, in this article, we will leave a compact summary of the development/History with a hatnote to the parent article (ITS - which would be re-named accordingly). Rowan Forest (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
─────────────────Rowan Forest, So basically rename the ITS article as "SpaceX Starship development history" or something like that, move the pre-starship name change BFR stuff there, then merge what is left of this article (current stuff) with SpaceX Starship under that name ("SpaceX Starship").
I'll also note that SpaceX does consider the entire stack of the Starship vehicle and Super Heavy booster together to be simply named "Starship" which is explicitly stated at their website's new Starship entry. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 09:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The fact that SpaceX now officially calls the entire stack "Spaceship" has implications for all their future press releases, which will be echoed by the media. I think Wikipedia has to adapt once more to the current name. See the new proposal below. Thanks, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A small step forward, given SpaceX new (once again) renaming of the vehicles[edit]

It could be that SpaceX recent use of the term "Starship" for the entire TSTO launch stack of both vehicle, and not merely the second stage/spaceship as they had defined it from the day they first used it in late 2018, may provide us a way forward on the natty naming/describing issue. As Insertcleverphrasehere just informed us above, it appears that SpaceX has switched yet again (sigh) their own terms for describing the vehicles and the vehicle stack. See their new entry for the launch vehicle here: SpaceX website's new Starship entry, which is new in the past 2 or 3 days.

Background: SpaceX is sometimes their own worst enemy for us editors clearly explaining on Wikipedia their next-generation rocket. SpaceX has made regular changes to the descriptors around the whole program and the vehicles.

  • They've used "Mars Colonial Transporter" and "Interplanetary Transport System" (ITS) in the past to label the entire program or system they need to go to Mars,
  • they also used MCT (circa 2013-2016) and ITS (2016-2017)to describe the full TSTO launch vehicle. So Wikipedia reached consensus in late 2017 on calling the entire system architecture to go to Mars "ITS" and the standard TSTO LV article we have on all launch vehicles the "ITS launch vehicle".
  • in 2017, SpaceX switched to "BFR" (Musk: "we are searching for the right name, but the code name, at least, is BFR."), which led to the community (and later, Wikipedia) beginning to use the terms "BFB" for the booster and "BFS" for the second stage. This was the time SpaceX rolled out the new 9m vehicle architecture, and quit emphasizing only the Mars/interplanetary use case, and they stated then that they would replace all of their existing vehicles (F9, FH, Dragon) with the new 9m vehicles (even for Earth orbit satellite launch), and stated that the corporation actually had the capability to fund the new smaller vehicle architecture.
  • in 2018, SpaceX clearly and unambiguously stated that the first stage would be called "Super Heavy" (a proper noun) and the second stage "Starship". (despite confusion from the term "super heavy" having been an used as an adjective in launch industry for years as in super heavy-lift launch vehicle)
  • now, in 2019, another change. SpaceX website is calling the entire TSTO launch vehicle "Starship" Their new website says: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship) represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond."

Personally, over the past year, I've been one of the editors arguing for consistency based on SpaceX naming: "Starship" is the 2nd stage and spaceship, and "Super Heavy" is the booster; therefore either "BFR" (the old common name; but no longer) or "Starship/Super Heavy" would need to be used to describe the TSTO launch stack.

A way out? Perhaps SpaceX this provides us a way out of the confusion. Wikipedia might, more simply, consistently use "Starship" to refer to the TSTO LV, and refer to the first stage as the "Starship booster" or "booster" (while noting as an aside that SpaceX also sometimes refers to the booster with the pronoun "Super Heavy"), and then refer to the the second stage as "Starship second stage", or "Starship spaceship", or "spaceship" depending on what part of the vehicle's use is being described. The goal, it seems to me, is to help the global Wikipedia reader grok the vehicles and concepts based on common terms.

I don't know that this would work, but if there developed a consensus about how Wikipedia might deal with the confusing, changing, and often overloaded terms SpaceX assigns, maybe this could help. Just an idea. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


OK, N2e demonstrated that the Starship home page implemented updates, including the new name for the complete system [1]: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship)"
Where does that leave us updating & consolidating the multiple related articles in Wikipedia?

  1. The parent article of the complete launch system, currently titled BFR (rocket), could be moved to an all-inclusive name. If the booster changes name in the future, we may benefit now by naming the BFR article: Starship launch system, or something similar.
  2. The article dealing with the Starship alone, currently titled SpaceX Starship, should retain that title and content. Its History section could be trimmed and linked to the new parent History section, proposed to be the ITS article.
  3. The Super Heavy. That is the booster's official name, it has no article yet and the related info is scant. It presents no problems with the current updates, especially if we name the BFR article in an all inclusive way —such as Starship launch system or similar.
  4. The lengthy history, including the outdated three-legged carbon fiber iteration, could be sent to the ITS launch vehicle article (which would then be re-named appropriately). A consensus seems to be building up regarding moving the History text there, and we have not heard an oppose from N2e.
  5. Under this proposal, there is no merge needed.

Your thoughts? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A simpler proposal[edit]

Thanks colleagues for debating possible ways forward to describe the various iterations of SpaceX's upcoming rocket. My suggestion would be to keep things as simple as possible:

  • Keep ITS as is: too different from later variants of the design
  • Keep this article focused on the 2017–2018 BFR iterations, i.e. the "carbon" designs
  • Move all information about the current "steel" iterations to SpaceX Starship
  • Create a section about the Super Heavy booster within the Starship article (thus acknowledging that SpaceX recently placed the whole stack under the "Starship" moniker)
  • Super Heavy (rocket) should point to this new SpaceX Starship#Super Heavy booster section, instead of BFR
  • Whenever more details emerge about Super Heavy, expand the relevant section, and possibly split it out to its own article, although I doubt that would be necessary.

Who likes that? — JFG talk 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

JFG, The only problem I have with that is that the BFR is not a different vehicle, it IS Starship, they just hadn't settled on a name yet. I don't think I support moving the BFR pre-steel stuff to ITS honestly, that article is about another vehicle, albeit a vehicle designed with the same goal in mind. In fact, the change to steel was made AFTER they changed the name to "Starship". Even though they changed the design material, this is the same vehicle as the BFR.
I like Rowan Forest's suggestion the best, as it gives us the easiest path forward (basically just renaming this article). I also like the suggested naming conventions that N2e has suggested. Starship launch system is a simple and easy to parse name that helps differentiate the spaceship from the complete vehicle stack, by simply renaming this article and following some new naming conventions on both articles we can avoid annoying mergers and move forward quickly. If in the future this article becomes unwieldy with the BFR/early starship history stuff in it, it can be forked to another SpaceX Starship development history article. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess there is some merit in getting rid of the two-article system and just going for following JFG's suggestions and also renaming this article SpaceX Starship development history straight away. I'd also support that as an option, but it will involve a lot more work as both articles will need to be re-tooled. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 20:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly the ITS and BFR are different iterations of Musk's Mars spacecraft concept, but the fact is that they evolved into Starship. For people like us following SpaceX's project, it seems intuitive to keep them separate, but we are supposed to educate the casual reader into how Starship came to be and the various iterations in between, so having the FULL history together in a single article seems best for Wikipedia purposes. Still, I'm willing to give it further thought and listen to all the other editor's ideas. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
An advantage I see with JFG's proposal is that the ITS and the SpaceX Starship articles would undergo minimal changes at this time. I also accept the point that the engineering of BFR is much more related to Starship that it is to the ITS. My reluctance so far is mostly based in that Musk is already working on the next generation, which will have dimensions and features similar to the ITS, so I feel it is efficient to keep the sequence of iterations in a single "History" article. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the history in one place. Based on past actions, SpaceX and Mr. Musk will, inevitably, make significant changes to Starship. Most likely, before they build the first, non-prototype vehicle. If we put all the past versions together in a history article, then we've also solve the problem of dealing with those future changes. We just keep the article on the current vehicle current and expand the history as needed. Fcrary (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Darn, I hate to say it, but I'm just utterly confused by all the differing proposals, at the very same time that SpaceX has suddenly switched their own internal naming practices for the umpteenth time. In other words, it doesn't seem like all of us editors have the same ideas about what the descriptors even mean. And with that, given all we got is words to discuss with, we can't really move forward. I tried a simple approach to perhaps getting a core of interested editors on the same page with respect to descriptors, but now my head is spinning with that as just one of many proposals, most with multiple simultaneous article merges and reconsolidations.

My take: this vast breadth of rejiggering All Things SpaceX next-gen vehicles and systems is just too much, too fast. I'd recommend we just focus on one single task at a time, like remaming one article or so, or WP:AfDing some article that someone doesn't like. I can't see how we can possibly get new names and article merge/combine/delete swizzles all in place at the same time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@N2e: There is something to be said about strategy and purpose when we have many related articles and overlap. However, sometimes that does not work in this open environment where a consensus is required. Hang in there, a couple more days. And thanks to mfb for taking the time and effort to craft the table below. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried to categorize, feel free to change it or add your name. --mfb (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the categorization table mfb! I've tried to summarize my proposal to the table for comparison. N2e (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Current scope
of article
Proposal A by Rowan Forest Proposal B by JFG Proposal C by JFG Proposal D by N2e Proposal E by Insertleverphrasehere
ITS launch vehicle page 12-m diameter orbital launch vehicle Include history from BFR article, rename Keep as is Merge into Starship development history I'm okay merging the ITS launch vehicle chapter of SpaceX history with the history of the 9m TSTO LV plus the history of the 9m 2nd stage
(For the record, my former proposal, from when the row heading went to a different article was this: Keep about the SpaceX Mars project. The overall Mars project should not be the story told in the launch vehicle article.)
Keep scope as is. Leave it alone, ya'll are trying to complicate this too much.
BFR_(rocket) 9m TSTO launch vehicle Describes system, move to
Starship launch system or similar
Whole system. Keep carbon fiber history,
move rest to SpaceX Starship
Whole system. Rename to Starship development history and explain all iterations until Starship flies Keep scope as is. The TSTO
launch stack needs an article.
Article does need renamed.
Keep scope as is. Rename to Starship launch system.
SpaceX Starship 9m 2nd stage & spaceship
(+ suborbital test articles
now being built/flown)
Keep as is (spacecraft only), short summary of development history Describes spacecraft and booster Whole system; 2019 version only; short summary of development history Keep scope as is. This rocket is notable
and meets WP:GNG now. It would
overwhelm the TSTO launch vehicle article. Might need renamed
Keep scope as is. This rocket is notable, perhaps rename to Starship (spacecraft) to decrease ambiguity between that article and this one.
Supporters Rowan Forest (2nd choice), mfb JFG, JFG, Rosbif73, Rowan Forest (1st choice), Fcrary, mfb, Soumya-8974 Insertcleverphrasehere (second choice), N2e (2nd choice) Insertcleverphrasehere, N2e

Concerning implementation of the first proposal: Move this page and change "BFR" to "Starship" where not historical. Rename ITS to History of Starship or something like that. Move steel history from this article to the history article. Three steps that all work on their own and leave a coherent Wikipedia after each step. In parallel SpaceX Starship can get some rephrasing now that the overall system is called Starship as well. --mfb (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

After considering all comments, I would also support keeping all history of Starship development in a single article. The current BFR article could be renamed Starship development history, and the ITS iteration could be merged into it, although we don't need to do it all simultaneously. I am very strongly in favor of keeping the SpaceX Starship article focused on the actual launch system that is being built and will fly. Pre-steel development history should only have a brief summary paragraph there. Added an option C to table above. — JFG talk 08:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Option C sounds best to me. I also note that both B and C would have the added advantage of keeping the existing edit history in the same article as most of the text that it relates to. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • After reviewing of the proposed strategies (thanks to mfb for the table) and the thoughtful feedback, I now favor the proposal C. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • My ideal would be something like A, but without moving the BFR stuff to ITS and keeping it in the Starship Launch System article history section (this would be literally as simple as just renaming this article), because its simple and could be accomplished in about 2 minutes. Otherwise its probably C, with B as a secondary option.Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I basically only support a simple changing the name of this article to Starship launch system, The ITS article is fine where it is, leave it alone. The history here is fine where it is, leave it alone, the Starship spacecraft article is also fine how it is, leave it alone. Just rename this article and move on. If we decide on mergers later, then we decide on them later. (I know this is close to N2e's proposal, so appologies for creating a new column, but I'd prefer the ITS article left alone.) — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 05:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. I think some sort of merge is very important. As it stands, some people are editing the "BFR" article to reflect the recently announced changes. Some people are making similar edits to the "SpaceX Starship" article. Others (e.g. the one on the Raptor engines) link to one or the other launch vehicle article in a way which is not all that coherent. With the content spread over many, many articles, we're inevitably going to have inconsistent edits and contradictory statements. If we can decide what should go where, then merge and rename articles accordingly, we avoid all that. That's a real hassle, but I think it's going to be better and easier in the long run. Fcrary (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Option C is closest to what I'd like (and I've edited the table to reflect that.) If we have one article on the past versions/development history, we can bypass the whole debate over whether or not Starship is just a new name for BFR or a different design. It also solves the problem where to put of the carbon-hull versus steel-hull BFR concept. I honest don't care if it's BFR being renamed and ILS content being add, or the other way around. Fcrary (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Woah. Hey Rowan Forest. Check the change you made here. diff. That may be what you think is the scope of that "ITS" link there in the table; but it is not. The link that is actually there in the table now, and has been all the time people have been putting there !votes/preferences is this: ITS ("[[Interplanetary Transport System|ITS]]"), which links to Interplanetary Transport System, and NOT ITS launch vehicle, which may be what you mean given you changing the "scope" as in the diff.

My point is that all the people, including me, who've weighed in to this point thought it was what the link actually pointed to, and that is the Mars Transportation Architecture, not the ITS launch vehicle. So it kind of invalidates all the !votes to this point.

Maybe restart a new table, and add a row for ITS launch vehicle, and clarify/spell out the ITS redirect to [[]], and start over with a new empty table? I don't know. But what we have is people thinking different things about the terms, which invalidates parts of the discussion. (This is hard; and SpaceX changing the names and meanings 3-4 times now has made it very hard for Wikipedia editors.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No way. Excuse me but when I and other editors refer to the ITS in this discussion it has always been referred to AND linked to the ITS launch vehicle. One person transcribed the proposed options into the table, and mistakenly he used a redirect from ITS into SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure, which was incorrect and not what was discussed, so I fixed it, but that does not invalidate the discussion and iVotes explicit for the ITS launch vehicle. We can deal with that article (SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure) much, much later as it is exclusively focused on Mars and its base. I understand and acknowledge quite respectfully that you have been an important driving force behind all those articles, but the discussion and consensus has taken us here. You make it not unanimous, but there is a consensus nonetheless. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with most of what Rowan Forest wrote. I've been talking about the ITS vehicle and how to describe it as a previous concept for what is not Starship. I don't actually follow evert link in every comment on a talk page, so I didn't even notice the redirect to the "SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure". So that has no impact on anything I've said and doesn't invalidate a vote (as far as I'm concerned.) As far as SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure is concerned, we'll have to update it based on whatever we decide to do with the article(s) on the launch vehicle. In the process, we might want to look it over and fix anything which has become obsolete since the ITS days. We'll also have to update Raptor, since it says it's the engine for BFR. I was going to hold off on mentioning that. There's no point in making those changes until we settle this. Fcrary (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, then it's clear you two both thought that, but I did not, as can be seen by my comment. Other editors can speak for themselves. As for me, if someone want to change the link, and the name, on that row to what Rowan is saying, then I'll try to get back here and adjust my comments/proposal in Column D. But as for how the table actually is, right now, my comment still holds as the link goes to Interplanetary Transport System (the "system" that Musk talked about in 2016, of which the launch vehicle was only one element), and not to ITS launch vehicle as both Rowan and Fcrary say they were thinking it meant. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, to be more explicit, maybe change THAT line to ITS launch vehicle and add Interplanetary Transport System/SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure (since they both go to the same target) to a new row added to that table. Just a thought. It might help, 'cause I'd probably have less problem with THAT (ITS/SMTA) merging into the new history article some of you are proposing. N2e (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
It is weird that Interplanetary Transport System redirects to the Mars article, not to the article about the proposed Interplanetary Transport System. Maybe we can fix that at some point, but I don't see the relevance here now. Just for the record: I always understood the discussion to be about the rocket article. --mfb (talk) 01:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Title for the ITS/BFR merger[edit]

It seems that option C above has most support, and I see no benefit in delaying the changes. Since there is a clear preference and there is nobody stonewalling the process, can we move on with the next steps and implement that option? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed names for the ITS/BFR merger article

(Doesn't have to be perfect, as a placeholder it can be moved later)

No Title options Supported by:
1 History of the SpaceX Starship–Super Heavy
2 History of SpaceX Mars vehicles
3 SpaceX Starship development history mfb (2nd); Insertcleverphrasehere (2nd);
4 Starship development history Rowan (1st); mfb (1st); Insertcleverphrasehere (1st); Rosbif73 (1st); JFG
5 Evolution of SpaceX Mars launch vehicles
6 History of Starship mfb (3rd); Insertcleverphrasehere (3rd); Rowan (2nd);
7 History of SpaceX super heavy lift vehicles Fcrary; Rowan (3rd)
8 Evolution of SpaceX super heavy lift vehicles Fcrary
9 History of SpaceX Starship --Soumyabrata (talksubpages)
10 (add another option)
  • I favor option 4, then 6. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm for a modified 2 or 5. I'd rather we could say "super heavy lift" instead of Mars. I'd rather not say "Mars", since they have said it will be used for other destinations as well. I'd rather not say "Starship" or "Super Heavy", since they may change the name again. It will always be "super heavy lift." Fcrary (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer 4, 3 or 6 in that order. The vehicle might have started as Mars rocket but it went beyond that narrow scope. Starship is the common name of what we have now and it is the history that lead to this vehicle, Starship should be in the name. SpaceX is not needed as disambiguation (it is the only Starship with a long development history) but it would increase similarity to the main article. --mfb (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a disadvantage to using "Starship" for the article on development history. Based on past history, SpaceX and Mr. Musk will almost certainly change the name again before it enters service. Potentially more than once. I'd rather keep name of the article on the current vehicle updated to reflect the nom de jour, and find a name for the history article that won't need to be changed. Do any of us really want another discussion like this one, each and every time Mr. Musk decides to change the name? Fcrary (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't like 2 or 5 as Starship isn't intended only as a mars vehicle but also for replacing satellite launch capability, moon launches, etc. 4, 3, or 6 in that order. "super heavy lift" as suggested above might also work but it fails WP:Concise. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 00:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I know. I wasn't happy with "History of SpaceX super heavy lift vehicles" myself, but I couldn't think of anything more concise. I was struggling to find something that covered all those different names and concepts, and which wouldn't have to be changed with the next SpaceX name change. If anyone can think of something less wordy which does that, I'd probably like that more. Fcrary (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Another !vote for 4, for all the reasons above. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I can support the idea of shrinking the 9m TSTO LV article and 9m Starship article by consolidating history elsewhere. I don't support the premise that is currently in the title of this Talk page subsection: "Title for the ITS/BFR merger", 'cause that presumes an outcome that I don't believe a consensus has yet been reached on: that the article on the overall SpaceX Mars architecture ("ITS" as listed in the mfb table above is just a redirect to that article at present) should be merged with the article describing the 9m TSTO launch vehicle that will replace ALL of SpaceX current LVs, and is not merely a Mars-centric launch vehicle, even if Mars may be a principal motivation of the CEO. N2e (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    This section only applies if an option is chosen that does this merger, obviously. --mfb (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I support № 9, as it is less ambiguous than any other options. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 09:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

SpaceX has a new webpage on Starship and Super Heavy that clearly defines that BFR is now Starship[edit]

SpaceX just released a new webpage that will clear this up once and for all. The webpage can be found at https://www.spacex.com/starship.

The page says "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket (collectively referred to as Starship) represent a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars and beyond. Starship will be the world's most powerful launch vehicle ever developed, with the ability to carry in excess of 100 metric tonnes to Earth orbit. Drawing on an extensive history of launch vehicle and engine development programs, SpaceX has been rapidly iterating on the design of Starship with orbital-flight targeted for 2020."

There you have it. Starship is both the spacecraft, by itself, and when joined with Super Heavy. So this article should be renamed "SpaceX Starship (spacecraft and booster)". user:mnw2000 00:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mnw2000: Look at the section above. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid that doesn't clear up much. See the two discussions, above. We already have an article on SpaceX Starship. Are you saying we should delete it and replace it by renaming BRF (rocket)? That doesn't make sense to me, since the "Starship" article is more up-to-date and doesn't have a large amount of baggage describing past designs. I also don't think that's where the consensus in the above discussions is headed. Also, just to make it fun, the SpaceX web page doesn't say whether BFR was a past design concept which has now been replaced by Starship, or if Starship is simply a rebranded BFR with a few modifications. I'd personally say the carbon composite version is fundamentally different from the steel-hulled one, but that isn't a universal view. Fcrary (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fcrary: I guess I should put this in the discussions above but at www.spacex.com/mars, SpaceX says "...will help fund development of SpaceX's Starship and Super Heavy (formerly known as BFR)", but this was before they switched to Steel. This also says that per SpaceX that the "BFR" and Starship are the same vehicle? OkayKenji (talk page) 02:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
My take: we are trying to do too many things at one time, making any cogent discussion of the many matters problematic. I had suggested there might be a way to just work on getting names/descriptors straight, and limiting ourselves to that as a first step. But it seems most ideas/proposals are combinations of merging articles, renaming things, and dealing with yet another SpaceX new use of terms, all at the same time. I said a bit more about this in the previous section. I'd recommend someone make a Proposal to do one single thing. Say, WP:MOVE an article, or WP:AfD an article, and see if we can't get agreement on that. I kind of seriously doubt we can get consensus on a complex and multi-dimensional change, when we are all likely still using names and descriptors from thee different epochs in SpaceX next-gen rocket history. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, these things largely depend on each other, but I showed how proposal A can be implemented step by step in the comment below the table. The same works for C. The first step is the merger that you oppose. --mfb (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
My only take was on the name BFR which is longer accurate. I would call it SpaceX Starship. The question as to whether we should have three articles (SpaceX Starship, Starship (spacecraft) and Super Heavy (rocket)) is up to debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnw2000 (talkcontribs) 15:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Please make your opinion to the section above, especially in the summary table of possible courses of action. — JFG talk 07:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Temp solution while we sort out mergers?[edit]

It looks like we are headed in the direction of some complicated mergers between the three articles. But while we sort out what the ideal merge might be, would anyone object to just moving this article to Starship launch system in the meantime? Having it sit at an obviously not commonname title while we sort all the merger stuff is not ideal in the least. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

It has existed with this title for years, so a couple more days does not matter. The discussion in the strategy is not at a dead end, and it is progressing very well. Hang in there, please, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Rowan Forest, I guess that especially with all the recent news coverage, having it at this title is a disservice to the reader. The discussions can continue, and I think that something approaching Option C will get approval, but that is going to take quite a bit of time to actually talk out and also to implement. In the meantime, there is no downside to having this article sit at Starship launch system in the meantime. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Rowan Forest, I guess, don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 21:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll just note that a few days ago I did suggest that perhaps we'd get there sooner/faster/better with a simpler and more narrow agreement on terminology, and what the various descriptors mean, between a number of interested editors. ... and leave the more complex article refactoring for a secondary step. Before that narrow convo could happen, the larger multi-article merge and all got proposed, with many having many differing and fairly complex views. I too appreciate the good faith everyone is showing a collegiality. But I do think we are not really getting close to a consensus, and the differing views on what the terms mean, even when a link is used in (for example) a column heading in the (otherwise) helpful table mfb added, is being, and likely to continue to be, a substantive impediment to getting a solid consensus in place.
I will participate in whatever process is joined by editors here. But i did suggest that this complexity might make it quite challenging to come to a workable consensus. YMMV. N2e (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
In that spirit, but in the opposite direction, I'll restate my preference in a way which does not use any names or terminology. Just the structural concept. If we could come to a consensus on that, perhaps we'd be in a position to decide on names, terminology, what goes in which article.
I am suggesting one article on the current super heavy launch vehicle being developed by SpaceX and one article on the past incarnations, versions and concepts for SpaceX super heavy launch vehicle. The article on the current vehicle would have a section on its history, but a brief one with a link to the other article. Neither would go into great detail about any plans or ideas from SpaceX about a transportation system, interplanetary or otherwise, but would certainly mention them with appropriate links. Does this sound like something we can agree on? Fcrary (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, N2e. The process of identifying a way forward was certainly complex but very cordial and we already came up with a consensus for the strategy that involves mergers, moves and updates. The very last thing under discussion is just the name for the merged ITS/BFR page (a place-holder name will do), which can be done today. The process worked fine, and the consensus is clear, but unfortunately, it is not unanimous: You voice is valued and valid, but I hope you understand that you are the only editor that voted for all articles in question to remain basically unchanged. Invalidating everybody's iVote and performing a repeat in order to include a page focused on Mars (that apparently nobody cared in this discussion to mention) is not a reasonable way forward. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Rowan. I agree with with the cordial attitude of all editors working on this thorny issue, made much harder by SpaceX frequent change of names, and WP:COMMONNAME sometimes varying with that. And no problem about us having differing positions on various parts of the matter. That's why we discuss. But I will say that I don't believe there was a finished consensus on any change. I don't think the discussion had even been going on for 7 days. Also, I think on this one we involved editors will definitely need to request an outside editor to do the closure of the discussion. This one is very complex; much more so than a regular knotty discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Rowan Forest, I'm going to have to agree with N2e on this one, we are pretty far from consensus. Also I've changed my mind and my thinking is much more in alighnment with N2e, we are trying to complicate this too much by trying to merge everything together. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 05:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────@Fcrary: I am suggesting one article on the current super heavy launch vehicle being developed by SpaceX and one article on the past incarnations, versions and concepts for SpaceX super heavy launch vehicle. The article on the current vehicle would have a section on its history, but a brief one with a link to the other article. [...] Does this sound like something we can agree on? Yes, I think it totally matches the spirit of what we have all been saying above. I'm also coming round to the idea of starting by simply renaming this article to Starship launch system or similar (largely to avoid us getting so bogged down in discussions that we never actually achieve anything). Splitting off the history into its own article would be a good second step, and we already have some vague consensus that it should be named Starship development history. We can discuss subsequent steps, such as merging the ITS launch vehicle page into that history, at a later date. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm against a "temporary solution" which would only last a few days, and would possibly re-ignite debates. We are faced with a complex web of issues, due to incremental development of the articles as news emerged. Now that there is clarity on the eventual spacecraft that will fly, it is the right time to sort the history into order. Let us just do it. — JFG talk 08:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on the closure and implementation[edit]

  • The iVotes above indicate that option #4, Starship development history, is the preferred name for the ITS launch vehicle/BFR merger page. I would like you to think of it as an appropriate "name/place-holder" that was assessed by the community, and that changing its name again in the very near future can be done if needed. This was the last step in the process, although there is one valuable editor against some changes, I request we now implement all the outcomes of the strategy (Option C) and the page title (Option #4), as agreed through the discussion, consensus and iVotes. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid they don't. I don't believe the discussion is finished, nor a consensus reached on this complex set of many different proposals by several different editors. I do not believe the discussion has even been gone for a full 7 days. Also, we should definitely ask for an outside editor to do the closure of the discussion, rather than any one of us involved editors doing it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The nature of the strategy surpassed the use of the usual templates for a single action. And it worked. All interested editors participated and a clear consensus was reached on every point. I am aware you disagree with the changes to all the articles involved and on the strategy and its outcome, but you are the only one in record. I love you too much to throw the Wiki-book at you regarding consensus (WP:Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity.) :-) I see no need to stall the process any further, considering some editors even posted requests for a quick fix so that the BFR page gets updated ASAP. Being that the Starship presentation has attracted a large traffic to these articles, I agree with those editors to proceed ASAP and implement what this community already decided. If you plan to appeal to an Administrator to delay and even prevent the implementation of the strategy that this community already agreed upon, lets get going. And yes, and outsider will be requested to perform the changes already agreed. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Rowan Forest, Discussions are meant to continue for a week minimum for mergers and complicated proposals, specifically to give time for other ideas and opinions to emerge. N2e has brought me more around to his thinking, (or, at least, convinced me that my first instinct was correct and that we don't need all these mergers). The !votes above for the Starship development history name were predicated on that being the preferred way to go forward, however, it isn't entirely clear yet if that is the path we should take. The cart is going before the horse at the moment and everyone is rushing around trying to get it done quickly without thinking if we SHOULD be doing the mergers. That's why I suggested just updating this article's name in the meantime, so that we don't have to feel rushed, but you shot that down. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 05:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we have rough consensus for option C above and title #4. No worries keeping the discussion open for a couple days, though. Bear in mind that we will better be able to improve articles once they are sorted logically as proposed. — JFG talk 08:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The strategy is now clear and simple: one merge under a new name. This simple step will also take care of the unsustainable duplication in multiple pages. Make it happen here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the strategy, but I don't see the point of opening a separate thread at the ITS talk page. Let's finish the discussion here. If you want to gather more feedback by adding a merge notice to the ITS article, you can point it to this discussion. — JFG talk 18:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Think that we should have continued the discussion here, not bifurcated it off to yet another place, after they are already nearly a half dozen sections of this page talking about it. N2e (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in the normal world, but because of the unreasonable antics and Wiki-lawyering, the formal merge has to be done. Discuss here if you will, iVote there. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Be careful, Rowan. You know Wikipedia well enough to know that we ought to keep it about improving the article, and not make it personal. This discussion had been going on for only about four days, and had people with a somewhat divergent set of views on the best way forward given the complex set of proposals tabled. Calling out your colleagues on Wiki-layering just 'cause the consensus is not imediately going your way borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Slow down. Stay collegial. Talk to improving the article, and not to the editor. We'll get through this. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
If you could actually state actual valid reasons. Invalidating the consensus of the original discussion because you could not understand it (SpaceX Mars transportation infrastructure vs ITS launch vehicle) is not an honest action, it is BULLSHIT. Stating that it is invalid because a formal merger template had not been used during the merger discussion is BULLSHIT. Telling the community at the Spaceflight Project that we are doing a complex merger of several pages is BULLSHIT (it is a normal 2-page merger). Refusing acknowledge and accept that WP:Consensus does not require unanimity is BULLSHIT. Bullshit attitude is not collegial. Be careful. And while you are at it, please review WP:Ownership of content. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it'd be good Rowan to return to speaking about improving the article and not attacking an editor who seems to have simply come to a different position than you in a complicated discussion on article content that had been going on for only 3 or 4 days at the time I registered my own position in the table you set up to assess other editor's views on the matter; and I did it with a rationale provided. (Interestingly, that there is not yet a consensus on the matter is a reflection that other editors have also seemed to also share a sense that we did not yet have a full consensus, in some measure or the other. Even today, it's not yet been seven days since the various proposals started, and less than half that since you seemed to want to take it to an early conclusion. So it is not surprising that some editors may still be thinking/reading/discussing and we are not yet "there".)
I consider your now thrice repeated shrill discussion of other editors on article Talk pages, rather than about improving the encyclopedia, to be personal attacks. And whatever any others may choose to do, I'll state here that I perceive them to be attacks on me under Wikipedia:No personal attacks criteria "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki." If you think that I have done some sort of editor behavior that is inappropriate, you know where to take it to have it fully dealt with using diffs and fully laying out whatever it is that you wish about my behavior. This article talk page is not the place for it. Your personal attacks should stop now. I recommend a couple days of chill, and see if we can't return to the collegiality we've had on every other matter for years now of editing many spaceflight and space articles together, both under your current and former usernames. I'm confident it'll quite workable from my side if you can just chill, and return to working on improving the articles. N2e (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I expose the (Redacted) of your arguments, not of your values. Live with it. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
N2e and Rowan Forest, could we all just step back and take a deep breath? I know both of you aren't happy about how you've been discussing this. But this isn't worth fighting about. With the current edit war on geophysical planet definition I'm sort of maxed out on obnoxious Wikipedia editors. I'd really would rather not see two editors I respect and enjoy working with getting into a fight. Fcrary (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I respectfully request Fcrary that you review the discussion above and please help me see where I have been obnoxious in the editor behavior department. This discussion started (in some 7 sections on this page by many editors) just seven days ago. I've made substantive comments on improving the article and provided rationale to support my position on the various topics brought up by others. Other editors seem to have also come down on the sorts of positions I supported. Never have I attacked another editor. But when another editor began moving it away from arguments about the article and moved to expletives and accusations about another editor who just happened to have taken a position on the questions being discussed that was different then theirs, and even began using expletives in that, I did ask for it to stop. Heck, I even suggested where the forum was for taking issue with my behavior (if the editor felt they actually had substance to their argument) so it wouldn't continue on this article Talk page. Your comment implies you see something inappropriate about both my behavior and Rowan's, and your comment is now a permanent record on this Wikipedia Talk page. Please clarify just why you have found my behavior on this page obnoxious. N2e (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe Rowan Forest was not nice with the phrasing, but he summarized quite well the problems with your discussion style here. --mfb (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I have requested to an uninvolved editor or administrator to close the discussion to determine consensus. Seven full days are passed since the discussion. --Soumyabrata (talksubpages) 10:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)