Talk:XCOR Lynx

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

Potential sources for Lynx[edit]

Use of Primary sources[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 28 April 2014[edit]

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

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

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


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. This isn't really a case of WP:NATURAL because "XCOR" (although surely "XCOR Aerospace" would be more correct) isn't actually part of the spacecraft's name but the name of the company associated with it. Although this format is used for aircraft, we don't typically use manufacturer names to disambiguate spacecraft and there is a prevailing consensus against doing so - for example the discussions which led to WP:SPACENAME and the move of SpaceX Dragon to Dragon (spacecraft). --W. D. Graham 21:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "XCOR Lynx" is used in the real world [1][2], so it is a case of NATURALDIS. Further, whatever else it is, this is still an airplane, so WP:AVIMOS also applies, and "XCOR Lynx" complies with that. Also, the Mark I is not a spacecraft, it's only an aircraft (it doesn't breach the 100km limit). -- (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As pointed out above, the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument doesn't apply, as the Dragon isn't an aircraft - this is. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is already an advert for XCOR. If disambiguation is a problem, just call it Lynx spaceplane - there can't be more than one such project. I've just checked the daily "Follow the Build" blog on the XCOR site and nothing has been posted for nearly seven months. Have they called it a day? --Pete (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Considering this is an XCOR product, that doesn't make too much sense. If you wish to delete the article, feel free to nominate it to WP:AFD, but as the entire article is about an XCOR product, adding XCOR to the title does not increase promotion of it. It's not like it's a stadium whose naming rights were sold. Calling it "Lynx spaceplane" also does not decrease XCOR the "advert", as you put it, in the article, as it is a pagename change and not content change. -- (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. That strikes me as a naïve but understandable view. I'm thinking of SEO here, where the title is indeed significant in brand visibility. Google looks at page names and rates them highly in pagerank calculations. The article already gives away a lot of valuable links through its use of primary sources. I don't know if this is a matter of paid editing, but I'm always wary of any of our articles which are written in such a way as to direct traffic back to a commercial website. --Pete (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Whose paid editing are you referring to? And if you feel that way, why haven't you been active in stripping the sponsor names from stadium articles, and tournament articles? As those are most certainly advertising, since they paid for the naming rights in order to promote their brand. -- (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I think at this point we are edging into the absurd. Thanks for your contribution. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Feel free to contribute to the various renaming requests that pop-up from time to time where there are requests to strip sponsor names from stadiums and sporting events are requested. -- (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Pete, the "the article is an advert for XCOR" argument got thoroughly trashed when you fought over it before. Please drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The WikiProject Aircraft standard is found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Naming and by consensus says "The naming of aircraft articles should follow a standard format of manufacturer-designation-name". The argument that using the manufacturer's name is advertising is spurious. What would we call Boeing 747 or Cessna 172? - Ahunt (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider that Boeing and Cessna are well-established aircraft manufacturers. They don't need Wikipedia to boost their profile. --Pete (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "2707" wouldn't make much sense unless you knew it was about a Boeing product. Most Boeing planes are simple numbers, so you'd need to indicate Boeing. This is the same situation with Cessna GA aircraft (ie. "152" isn't particularly illuminating unless you have Cessna attached) If you think any articles on products are not encyclopedic content, feel free to nominate all product articles for deletion. -- (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This isn't about "advertising". This is about how real-world aircraft, and aerospacecraft, are referred to in the literature, and how they are, by hammered-out and established WP:CONSENSUS, how aircraft (and aerospacecraft) have their pages titled on Wikipedia. The argument that it's somehow "advertising" has been debated and deflated before and is utterly spurious. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments: Spacecraft don't generally fall under WP:AIR's purview, as WP:ROCKETRY and WP:SPACEFLIGHT aren't connected directly to WP:AVIATION. That's a deliberate choice by several dominant editors of WP:ROCKETRY, who did not want to follow the conventions of WP:AIR, but to develop their own conventions. So we first need to determine what the vehicle really is, as the different projects have different naming conventions. Is this an aircraft that goes into space, like the X-15, or a spacecraft with aircraft features, such as the Space Shuttle? Once that's suitably determined from reliable sources, then applying the correct naming convention should be relatively easy. - BilCat (talk) 04:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:AIR is not WP:FILM: WPAIR covers unbuilt concepts, designs, and proposals as well as those which were actually constructed. If WP:SPACEFLIGHT only covers actual constructed products, then this would clearly fall within WP:AIR, and thus should follow WPAIR naming conventions. :) -BilCat (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting logic. :) Dream Chaser is a similar article. Of craft which have actually reached space, we have SpaceShipOne and North American X-15, both of which have broadly similar launch, flight, and recovery modes. We call SpaceShipOne a spacecraft even though it was registered as an aeroplane. I think that this is a wider question than can be settled here on this talk page, and really should be discussed at a higher level with wider input. Or is this an attempt to circumvent those "several dominant editors of WP:ROCKETRY" mentioned above? --Pete (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, because WP:ROCKETRY is now an all but dead project. (Also, SpaceShipOne is, like Concorde, a case of WP:COMMONNAME being so utterly dominant that the naming convention wouldn't apply.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pete, actually I was being facetious in response to your assertion that "It isn't anything at the moment", and so shouldn't be classed as a spacecraft. And I'm not trying to circumvent anyone, which is why I stated earlier that we should go with what reliable sources state the vehicle is. BR, I'm one who actually thinks the Concorde should not be an exception, as promoting Concordeism is not neutral, but that's an issue for elsewhere. :) - BilCat (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the smilies took care of the humour.:) My point about a wider discussion remains. I don't really know or care about whatever took place in ROCKETRY, but I don't think we should be setting topic-wide conventions here in one little article about a design that hasn't even flown. It would be better to just point to whatever guidelines we already have and use those. If they need changing, then have that discussion there. --Pete (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Understood on the :)s. There are already guideines for naming aircraft (WP:AIRNAME) and spacecraft (WP:SPACENAME) articles - what needs to be determined is which one apply to this article. If reliable sources made clear what type of vehicle the craft is, then it could be settled on this page. I was hoping we wouldn't need to have a topic-wide discussion at the project level on the issue. That would likely lead to an ugly turf war between the projects, and frankly I'm no longer interested in participating in that sort of discussion. There aren't that many aerospaceplanes compared to the number of pure aircraft anyway (a few dozen vs. over 10,000), so it's just not worth the grief. - BilCat (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, why not use the accepted boundary of space, the Kármán line to define the difference? The vast majority of those 10 000 aircraft wouldn't come within coo-ee of the boundary so it's still only a handful of craft that need be classified. If a craft reaches outer space it's a spacecraft, by definition. --Pete (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Under that condition, this airplane does not qualify, since the Mark II and III do not yet exist, and the Mark I does not breach that limit. -- (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Mark I doesn't exist yet either, so all three are in the same category there. I draw your attention to the discussion below, for comment, please. --Pete (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The Mark I is being constructed, so it has hardware. [3] -- (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • My logic on the situation is if it has wings/is a lifting body, it's an aircraft. If it's a capsule, it's not. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • So there's a policy disconnect if some articles follow one naming rule and some another. Which is what we already have. Sloppy encyclopaediamanship. Judging by the increasing number of spaceplanes, real, planned or (like the Xerus) never built, it would be useful to debate the issue once and then follow a consensus guideline, rather than repeat this debate for every article now and to come and probably come up with inconsistent results, depending on which editors happen to be interested at the time. That applies regardless of which rule is eventually chosen. Do it once and be done with it. Justr sayin'. --Pete (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't understand the claims of 'advertising'. It makes perfect sense, per Bushranger, and is a good way to avoid the constructed parenthetical nonsense that is presently used. RGloucester 23:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The aircraft naming policy came about purely because with aircraft including the manufacturers name is commonplace with almost all aircraft, and has been since the beginning of aviation. This was a pure consolidation of Common Name matters. However I see no evidence that XCOR Lynx is being used as the common name for this craft. Reliable sources like, Air and Space magazine, NASA and others don't refer to it by Manufacturer Model naming conventions. We have Space Shuttle, Spaceship One, Spaceship Two, Buran and in fact every other spaceplane in the project (with the exception of only some of the US spaceplane concepts and actuals) called solely by their model, not by manufacturer and model. Canterbury Tail talk 00:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
And the "aircraft naming policy" isn't a WP:POLICY. It's not really certain that it's a WP:GUIDELINE; all sorts of sometimes WP:MOS- and/or WP:AT-conflicting, highly specific, wikiproject-generated "naming convention" and "style guidance" WP:PROJPAGEs have been labelled with {{Guideline}} without any sort of formal proposal process. They've mostly been just grandfathered in under general assumptions of good faith and consensus, of course, but the more projects become insular and WP:OWNy, the less consensus-based some of these pages are. Many of them are full of WP:Specialist style fallacy problems.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm a big fan of natural disambiguation, and this seems like a perfect way to get rid of the parentheses. Obviously, we should only use natural disambiguation when the term is actually in natural use, but other editors have shown "XCOR Lynx" being used in Aviation Week, The Huffington Post, Gizmodo, Popular Mechanics, and soon. As for the issue of corporate advertising: sometimes Wikipedia's policies naturally produce an outcome that happens to help real-world organizations. XCOR is probably thrilled that this article exists, no matter what it's titled, but that doesn't stop us from writing it.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I'm not at all swayed by the aircraft project's insistence on adding manufacturer names to aircraft (and by extension spacecraft) articles as some kind of "convention", but where it serves an obvious disambiguating purpose like this, it's clearly suitable. The real question is why Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird is at such an awful title. Either Lockheed SR-71 or SR-71 Blackbird are preferable, but it should really be SR-71, since the DAB page presently at that name treats the [air|aero]plane as the primary topic anyway, all the others are cases of abbreviation of "State Road", and one thing named after the plane.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

First flight set for 2010[edit]

"The spaceship, roughly the size of a small private airplane, will first take off in 2010 and will be capable of flying several times each day." So says the 2008 XCOR press release announcing the concept, a rebranded version of their likewise unflown Xerus. Back in 2005, they were selling Xerus tickets to space for $98 000.

If and when the first flight occurs, we'll dutifully note down the date. Until then, it's pie in the sky. Like many other things in this world. I'm still waiting for my flying car and robot butler, for example. --Pete (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That quotation you provided does not seem to be in the article, so it's not clear what you are talking about.
Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, so let's not discuss anything except improving the article here. If you have something concrete to suggest toward improving the article, please do so clearly. Then, that might be discussed, and see if consensus might be gained for improvement. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Improving the article would include pointing out that this is a scam. They were selling tickets in 2008, and every year since then have announced that the flight test program would begin "next year". We're getting into Snopes territory now. --Pete (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, as long as you have reliable sources that state it's a scam, and have some legal proof of it. You do have those, right? - BilCat (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)