Category talk:Space launch vehicles

Actual hardware only

I strongly propose we only ever add flown hardware (success or failure) to this category. Otherwise the category will get swamped and overwhelmed with pipe dreams. I've just removed two nonexistant (or never flown) rockets for which someone felt they could use this category as an advertising platform (even quoting prizes).

It possible of course to make a second list which could include everything ever planned, but this one just shouldn't. Ropers 01:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this theory. The name implies *all* space launch vehicles, not just those that have launched; that means lots of people will misunderstand it anyway. Wouldn't it be better to make this the superset, and create subcategories for actual and proposed vehicles (or somesuch)?WolfKeeper 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added Category:Proposed spacecraft to this category. It seems both correct and proportionate.WolfKeeper 02:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it better to have this category called "Space launch vehicles" or "Space launch systems"? I noticed that reusable launch vehicle redirects to reusable launch system. --NeuronExMachina 05:39, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree to the change in catelogue name to vehicles but a system might be part of tha catelogue--aceslead 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Clutter

Maybe all vehicles that have a RLV, ELV, or PRLV, should be removed from the SLV category to reduce the clutter. So that only none categorized vehicles, that don’t yet have a category are just left under the SLV category.--aceslead 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)