Talk:SpaceX Starship/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023

Did the rocket launch attain all it's goals? No

Did Starship succeed? Maybe

Per https://cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/20/world/spacex-starship-launch-thursday-scn/index.html

"Although it ended in an explosion, Thursday's test met several of the company's objectives for the vehicle.

..."Clearing the launchpad was a major milestone for Starship."

My 2¢ is to call it a partial success. What do others think? Idontno2 (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I think calling it a failure is ignoring what the intentions of launch was. However it definitely wasn’t a complete success. Are we allowed to make a partial success category though? Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Partial failure" was used by Boeing and NASA for the Boeing Starliner OFT-1 flight. I think that anyone who really cares will look more deeply than the labe we give it and learn about what actually happened. -Arch dude (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Completely reasonable. Though this page might influence the public’s views on the safety of starship in the future. Bugsiesegal (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the companies "intentions," acrossed spaceflight Wikipedia pages, we treat all orbital flights the same, be them test flights of new rockets or the 1200 flight of a Soyuz. Doing so would break the consensus and consistence developed acrossed spaceflight Wikipedia. This is simply the nature of iterative design, you will fail. this was an orbital launch attempts, it was destroyed at 39 km. It's not close to a success in the way every other Wikipedia article about launch vehicles are done. This argument comes up many times a new rocket fails during launch, and people can't bring themselves to be unbiased and continue with consensus and precedent. Should we reconsider the first flights of the N1 rocket because they too were developmental test flights? Was Falcon 1 Flight 1 a partial success? This test is not partial, that not how we catalogue launches here. If an operational starship mission did the same, would it still be considered partial, even if it was crewed? If this test really is partial, then I expect the same people to push for changing N1 to partial as well. Otherwise it's clear that there's a deviation from precedent and consensus. And we gain nothing from changing definitions page by page. If this is the bar, it's essentially impossible for Starship to "fail". This sets the success criteria for Starship on this page going forward. So it needs to be consistent. Test flight's don't get special success categories, if this flight was carrying satellites to orbit, it would be nowhere near a partial. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

But it wasn’t carrying satellites. And hey if you want to change N1 to a partial success go for it. That rocket was cool. Bugsiesegal (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it because that's not objective and not inline with Wikipedia spaceflight consensus. Anything to hide the word failure from a SpaceX page.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a test vehicle, does wikipedia have the list of F9s that were lost in developing that vehicle too? No, so why is it here?

108.14.243.103 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it should. 2603:8000:C200:C412:7D2F:BD9C:70C7:F6C2 (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree 100%. I'm the user who cited the ArsTechnica link to verify that this flight was a failure (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/04/so-what-was-that-was-starships-launch-a-failure-or-a-success/) and I cited it specifically because it states that the mission is failure by the original standards of successful separation, orbital flight, and successful landing. All orbital flights are treated the same by Wikipedia and this flight is no different. It's a failure. It's only "successful" in the limited sense of lifting off, but even that is only a partial success at best because it apparently damaged several engines in the process and experienced unscheduled engine-outs and thrust oscillation. The ArsTechnica article addresses the people wanting to talk about what went right while definitively stating this flight is still a failure because it was intended to be orbital. Full Shunyata (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

You cited an article that explicitly describes the event as both a success and a failure, but you then chose to unilaterally declare it is a failure. The entire point of the article, including its title, is that it can be viewed as both. The author, Eric Berger, is IMO a thoughtful journalist with a pro-space bias leaning slightly toward a SpaceX bias, but you should not unilaterally re-interpret the article. I think we need to explain both sides to our readers. This is similar to the situation when sources disagree, but it's in one source. -Arch dude (talk) 01:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I can choose a different article that's more suitable and leaves no ambiguity. One that would be more appropriate for a citation as a failure. Full Shunyata (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

And if you did that, you would be demonstrating that you are not a neutral editor, but instead are pushing your own POV. When there is a disagreement in the press, we are supposed to describe both sides. -Arch dude (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has consistent rules about classifying orbital launches, which this flight expressly was. If there is a reason this particular flight should be given a special exemption from Wikipedia's rules about orbital launches then it should be specified. There's nothing to disagree about when it comes to Wikipedia's rules. Someone would need to prove that this flight was not intended to be orbital in order to exempt this flight from being listed as a failure. Full Shunyata (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

According to other Wikipedia articles, the launch was a partial failure. So, in order to be consistent, it should be labeled a "partial failure" Redacted II (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no. "Wikipedia" has no such rules. The highest level of "rule" is a formal policy, and there are only about 8 of them. You are referring instead to a set of conventions agreed on collaboratively by a set of editors interested in space-related articles (and which I generally agree with). However, the policies override these conventions, and one of the policies is that we must use reliable sources and that we must report on both sides when there reliable sources conflict. The flight was a failure, and it was a success. -Arch dude (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Good point. But to me a key consideration is this wasn't planned to be an orbital flight.

https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-first-space-launch

"The flight plan today called for... (a) planned partial trip around our planet... ending with a hard splashdown in the Pacific Ocean not far from the Hawaiian island of Kauai about 90 minutes after liftoff."

So I guess the question I have is do we treat sub-orbital flights the same as orbital?

I totally agree that we should be consistent across all wiki's. But sometimes it's a real head scratcher on whether we should look at what might have been, vs what the key objectives of the launch were. Idontno2 (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest adding a footnote to the failure entry for clarification and to reduce back & forth changes. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This was intended as an orbital flight, specifically a Transatmospheric Earth Orbit (TAO). Perigee was intended to be around 50 km, with apogee of 250 km. That is a type of orbit. An EFN footnote could be added. That would still make it consistent. I mean, if the bar for success or partial success of the first orbital launch attempt of a new rocket is just lift off from the pad, every single launch no matter the outcome would be at least partially successful. ABl's RS-1 was a failure, Rocket 3 F1 was a failure, Zhuque-2 was a failure, Japan's H3 was a failure. LauncherOne's F1 was a failure. Those aren't debated, and they're just as much a test launch with the explicit intent of reaching orbit as this Starship orbital launch attempt was.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. As a SpaceX project to generate engineering data, it succeeded. As a launch, it failed, unambiguously. Compare with the Energia/Polyus launch (which has also tri-stated on Wiki between failure/success/mixture), which successfully tested the booster, but failed to launch the satellite. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. It can be a success as a step in the overall development program but in terms of reaching its main test objectives, it failed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should avoid including this distinction. The current text succinctly explains what happened in the test and its objectives. 66.65.55.221 (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This well-sourced Reuters article refers to the launch as a "successful failure", and reiterates that this is part of the company's testing strategy, so labelling the infobox possibly as a partial success or partial failure, or adding a note giving more context. LordDainIronfoot (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a compromise idea: Label this as a "prototype failure". Not a partial failure, nor a complete failure. I know it breaks Wikipedia standard, but it labels the launch about as accurately as possible. Redacted II (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO we're here to provide information, not a wikipedian-selected value-laden characterization on something which is not clearly either. How about just put statements (with attribution) by SpaceX and an independent expert or two? Sincerely,. North8000 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

But Musk himself gave it about a 50/50 chance of attaining orbit. There is a big difference between a standard expected full success, like an atlas launch or spacex space station supply mission, and a test flight where it is unknown how far it could fly. They learned some things and then had to hit the self-destruct button on this prototype. Apollo 13 was a successful failure and it was fully expected to go well. Prototypes are a different entity. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering this was a test launch, I feel it should be considered a partial success/failure in the Infobox since it launched and got near 1st [stage] separation. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, if you want to set the bar this low, go ahead. There is no partial failure entry for an orbital launch attempt for a rocket on Wikipedia that didn't at least reach some sort of orbit. And that because "partial failure" implies most of the launch was successful, which is not true. It lifted off, causing major damage to it's launch pad, reached a sub-nominal max-Q and then blew up, not even halfway to space, and without accomplishing the majority of it's pre defined objectives. If getting this far for an orbital launch is success. Why was the case not made for Firefly's Alpha rocket's first flight being a partial failure (mostly successful) rather than a failure? Astra's rocket 3 launching Tropics must have been incredibly successful then. The Proton-M that flew upside down was still partial because it didn't destroy the launch pad. The bar has been set so that now if a company claims the probability of success is now, it's impossible to fail. This rocket could have blown up 5 seconds after launch, and this argument would still be made. It's irrelevant if they're test flights because that's the nature of test flight, they fail sometimes. And pretending they don't is incredibly disingenuous. If what happened during this previous orbital launch occurs during a cargo, tanker, or crewed flight. I fully expect them to also be labeled as at least partial success, you can't have both. Because if that's the bar you want, be prepared to stick with it. The amount of bias in this article and talk section is unbelievable, and most of the reasoning comes directly from SpaceX saying it may not be successful, and using them as the primary reason for this is a violation of Wikipedia:Independent sources. Not to mention the egregious violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view considering this was not a conversation even considered for launches of Firefly Alpha, Rocket 1, Rocket 2, Rocket 3. H-III, ZQ-2, ZQ-2, SS-520, Electron, LauncherOne, Nuri, N1, RS1, CZ-7A, etc. And most of those got further than this orbital launch attempt did. This argument did happen for Terran-1 and the outcome is as you'd expect from a non-bias and impartial editor (it failed). Musk also said the odds of the first Falcon Heavy were 50/50. That doesn't mean it can't fail. If Musk gave this orbital launch attempt 50/50 odds. It's exceptionably clear what side of the "50" it landed on. Bvbv13 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you. Fine points but stating them sooner could have forestalled or shorten this discussion. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The main goal of this flight was to clear the tower. Everything else was secondary. So, since it succeeded in that goal, before failing, it can be at least considered a partial failure. All of your other examples failed launches had more ambitious goals then "make it off the pad". Therefore, they're completely irrelevant on the matter of "Did starship fail, partially fail, or succeed?". Redacted II (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering the vehicle is grounded by the FAA pending a mishap investigation (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/24/spacex-starship-explosion-spread-particulate-matter-for-miles.html) and that every other maiden launch that has failed to reach its main test objectives on Wikipedia has been categorized as a "failure" I don't see how any consistent argument can be made to classify Starship differently. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Because those other test flights had more ambitious goals. This didn't have a payload. The primary goal was to clear the tower. It cleared the tower. Therefore, since it failed at the secondary goal (reach orbit), it can only be called a partial failure. Calling it a failure would be misleading. Redacted II (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Calling it a "partial failure" would be far more misleading because it implies the vehicle successfully completed the majority of the test objectives set out before launch. It did not.

As user:Jrcraft Yt brings up, Wikipedia has a fairly consistent usage of the term across many articles and what you are proposing is not at all consistent with how the term is defined elsewhere. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Think about the definition of "partial failure". Part of the launch was successful. Part of it was a failure. They achieved some goals. They failed in others. This is quite literally a perfect case of partial failure. They cleared the tower (primary goal). They failed to reach orbit (secondary goal). Every single knowledgeable source (like SpaceX, the DearMoon astronauts, and Jared Isaacman, a Polaris III astronaut) is calling it a successful test flight. So the label "failure" shouldn't even be an option Redacted II (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

According to CNBC, Starship is currently grounded pending an FAA mishap investigation. There's a difference between saying "it contributed meaningfully and successfully to the overall vehicle development campaign" and "the flight was a success." – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the test goals. I don't know how many times I have to explain that. Redacted II (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read user:Jrcraft Yt's reply. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read the test goals.

PRIMARY: Clear the tower. Result: SUCCESS

SECONDARY: Reach orbit. Result: FAILURE Redacted II (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Fnlayson, Jrcraft Yt, CtrlDPredator, Bvbv13, and Full Shunyata: Just wanted to let you all know that Redacted II has deemed you all as having "abandoned" this discussion and believes this gives them the right to unilaterally edit the launch status in the infobar and edit war with anyone who attempts to change it. They have reverted me twice now for attempting to return it to the status quo.

Do you all agree there is a "consensus" to change the page status the way they have? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's misleading. The one whose been doing an edit war is Jadebenn. I have been reverting their edits BECAUSE it violates the status quo, which is "partial failure". Redacted II (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You've done a lot more than revert just my edits. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've also reverted others edits, when they change it to "failure" Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you have actually violated WP:3RR in doing so. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should call it as spacex called it. If it was a succes for them, then call it a succes. Thats why F1 launch 1 was a failure. It was classified by spacex as one. Starship was considered a succes, AND it was a prototype. The N1 was not a prototype, and was not supposed to fail, thats why it was a failure. But i can agree with partial succes too. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Please, express that in the RFC! Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no. let's be clear here, simply lifting off was not the be all end all goal here. The stated goals for this flight, as explicitly laid out by SpaceX were:

Planned mission timeline

Time	Event	April 20
00:00:00	Liftoff	Success, damaged pad and vehicle
00:00:55	Max q (moment of peak mechanical stress on the rocket)	Success, but sub-nominal
00:02:49	Main engine cutoff (MECO)	Failure
00:02:52	Stage separation	Failure
00:02:57	Starship ignition	Failure
00:03:11	Booster boost backburn startup	Failure
00:04:06	Booster boost backburn shutdown	Failure
00:07:32	Booster is transonic	Failure
00:07:40	Booster landing burn startup	Failure
00:08:03	Booster splashdown	Failure
00:09:20	Starship engine cutoff (SECO)	Failure
01:17:21	Starship atmospheric re-entry interface	Failure
01:28:43	Starship is transonic	Failure
01:30:00	Starship Pacific impact	Failure

The vast majority of the stated test objectives failed, as they were precluded by the rocket being terminated in flight. resulting in complete vehicle failure. I think many of the people here don't understand what the term "partial failure" means. It implies that the majority of the objectives were successful, with only a smaller portion of them failing. The vast majority of the explicitly stated goals failed completely. So even the use of the term partial failure is objectively wrong. Out of these 14 explicit objectives for this orbital flight, 2 were completed, both with issue. That amounts to, at most 14% of the objectives being completed, though not without issues of their own. There's no possible way to spin that to say that the majority of the objectives were completed successfully as the term "partial failure" implies. You're going to need a new term when 86% of the stated goals fail, and the rocket ends up being terminated by the ROS, and that word is failure. The launches stated above were launched under similar probability's of success (LauncherOne, Rocket 3, etc). With those companies stating that they did not expect orbit to be achieved. In Astra's page for rockets 1 & 2, the outcome is listed as "Failure (Astra declared success)" because both vehicles failed and were completely destroyed. Please, somebody here find a single example where a non successful madden orbital launch attempt of a rocket is classified as partial failure rather than failure. Every single orbital launch classified as partially successful on Wikipedia, as a minimum, reached some sort of orbit. And even then, not all that did are classified as partial because their orbits were too out of specification to result in any amount of success. Take SSLV D1. It's first launch reached a TAO (the same Earth orbit that this flight was targeting) and is classed as a failure because it's satellites were destroyed. SSLV D1 was just as much a test flight as this one was, and it actually reached an orbit (356 x 76) km. I said this before, but some editors will be as disingenuous as possible in order to prevent the word "Failure" on a SpaceX page. Almost all of the arguments against this all fall into this category. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me provide some examples of actual partial failures for orbital launches, including some test flights:

Firefly Alpha flight 2, deployed payloads in too low an orbit.

Ariane 5 VA-241, Satellites reached orbit, but with substantial inclination deviations from what was intended.

Ariane 5 VA-142, Satellites delivered to a MEO rather than a GTO, one satellite was recovered, one could not be salvaged.

Angara A5/Persei F1, a test flight in which the Persei upper stage failed during the second engine burn, stranding the dummy payload in LEO.

Atlas V AV-009, Centaur shut down too early, deploying the satellite in a suboptimal orbit.

Long March 3B/E, satellites were deployed into a lower than intended orbit because of a third stage attitude control anomaly.

Soyuz-2.1a/Fregat, satellites deployed into wrong orbit due to issues with the Fregat upper stage.

Proton-m/Briz-M 935-34, Briz-M shut down 4 minutes too early due to engine damage. Satellites deployed into an incorrect orbit.

Falcon 9 flight 4, single engine failure on stage 1, resulting in the secondary payloads being deployed into a near useless orbit and subsequently lost after a short time.

Delta IV Heavy Flight 1, a test flight where both side boosters shut down 8 seconds too early, and the core stage shut down 9 seconds too early. The DCSS was unable to compensate fully and the satellites were deployed into a rapidly decaying orbit.

Notice how they all reached orbit, and the vast majority of flight objectives were completed with success. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And now, for some of the outcomes for maiden, test flights of new orbital rockets:

H3, second stage did not ignite. Vehicle later terminated by range, did not reach orbit. Failure

Electron, telemetry was lost and the RSO destroyed the rocket during second stage burn. Failure

Rocket 3, Failed during first stage burn, deviated from trajectory and destroyed by RSO. Failure

Terran-1, second stage failed to start. Failure

Launcher One, LOX line rupture, starving engine of oxidizer. Failure.

Firefly Alpha F1: Engine failure 15 seconds after launch, lost control authority at ~T+2:30, activating FTS and destroying the vehicle (remind you of anything?). Failure

Ariane 5 V88/501, first launch of Ariane 5, decided it was 90 degrees off course, deviating from trajectory and subsequently destroyed by RSO. Failure

Zhuque-2, Vernier engines failed, precluding any chance of reaching orbit. Failure

Zhuque-1, Attitude control failure on stage 3, failed to reach orbit. Failure

Soviet N1, started to drop engines shortly after liftoff, causing a fire in the first stage, all engines shut off at T+68 seconds. Failure

Falcon 1, Engine failure at T+33 seconds, vehicle destroyed. Failure

Proton-K, flew off course and exploded shortly after launch. Failure

Long March 7A, lost pressure in a side booster just before MECO. Failure

Zenit-3SL, failed to reach orbit due to a guidance problem. Failure

ABL RS1, all engines shut down shortly after liftoff. Failure

Every single rocket that failed to reach orbit during it's inaugural test flight to orbit is considered a failure, despite chances of success being low, and intent to fly as long as possible. And most of these flew lar longer, higher, and accomplished more test objectives than this first orbital launch attempts of Starship. It's obvious here. Unsurprisingly, test flight fail often, pretending they don't which is what's going on here is nonsense. Accept when failure happens, be objective, that's how we edit. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Every single one of your examples had the goal of reaching orbit. This one had the PRIMARY goal of getting off the pad, with the SECONDARY goal being orbit. Since the primary goal was achieved, but not the secondary, it must be classified as a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It was planned to exit the atmosphere and become sub-orbital. It didn't even get close to that. If we are being consistent then this is a failed launch, and there isn't anything wrong with that. Other SpaceX launches have failed. CtrlDPredator (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The primary goal was to get off the pad. It succeeded in that. So, partial failure is the right classification. Redacted II (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That is inconsistent with other launches, as has been pointed out by several others here. CtrlDPredator (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. For example, LauncherOne's first flight had expectations set by the company as "That moment of ignition of the NewtonThree, I would say, is the key moment in this flight,” Pomerantz said. “We’ll keep going as long as we can after that, potentially all the way to orbit, but we’re really excited about the data and about the moment of ignition and as far as we can get after that." Still a Failure

For rocket 3, "For this flight, our first orbital attempt, our primary objective is to achieve a nominal first stage burn. If we make it this far, we’ll be happy with our progress and be well on our way to reaching orbit within 3 flights. The more we accomplish, the more we learn, and the closer we are to reaching orbit." Failure

Terran 1, "Getting through Max-Q was a major goal for this launch to demonstrate the integrity of the rocket’s 3D-printed structure" Failure

The goals are clearly laid out by SpaceX, so enough with the "anything after liftoff is icing on the cake" because that's not an argument. All of these examples are objective and deal with the facts. Which is not what's happening here. It's irrelevant what the companies expectations were. This was an orbital launch attempt, and a test flight. It failed. We've delt with such things on Wikipedia countless times. Wikipedia is intended to be free of personal bias and misleading information.

Also, Wikipedia's talk page guidelines give at least a week before closing, which has not happened Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. So the article should return to the previous state before this discussion was started. Which was failure in the sidebar. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Closing discussions, this article should be returned to the previous status quo. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:Consensus, a consensus does not need unanimous approval. So far I have seen the vast majority of posts in the talk section of this page supporting the label of "partial failure". Therefore, it is safe to assume that there is a consensus. Redacted II (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you can claim there is at all a consensus for "partial failure" in this discussion. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 22:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:Consensus. Because the majority are in approval of "partial failure". It doesn't have to be unanimous.

There are five for "failure", including you.

There are six for "partial failure", including me.

Six>five. Redacted II (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Remember, a consensus does not need unanimous approval. Given that the majority seem to be in support, and that the majority of EVIDENCE is in support, it can be assumed.

Right now, the ONLY people continuing this topic are you and me. This is a settled matter. Continuing this argument only weakens the article, and the entirety of Wikipedia as well. Redacted II (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

What weakens Wikipedia is trying to prematurely close contentious discussions with slim majorities in contravention of community guidelines. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

When no-one is arguing for a side but you, and everyone else has moved on, then your weakening Wikipedia. This has been settled. Redacted II (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:THEREISNORUSH. There are dissenting comments made today, and the discussion has been active for less than a week. There is no consensus for a change to "partial failure" and therefore no justification for a unilateral change. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There would be no change to "partial failure". It's already "partial failure". But that's irrelevant.

When the discussion has ended, consensus can be assumed. Everyone (with one exception) has accepted the results, and moved on. Redacted II (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Really? Because I see quite a few people who posted over the past few days saying that they disagree. Have you asked them if they've changed their minds? Or are you simply assuming it because that's convenient to your point of view?

I realize you're a new user to this site, but you need to understand that this behavior is not conducive to productive discussion. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Just because you've been editing for longer than me doesn't affect the validity of my argument. The discussion was abandoned by everyone else. So, unless someone (other than the two of us) revived this discussion, it's safe to assume that this is over. Redacted II (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours elapsed does not an "abandonment" make. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

At the time they left, the current status of the page was "partial failure". Until the consensus changes, "partial failure" it will remain.

This entire discussion between us is just wasting space in the talk page. How about we wait a week? After all, WP:THEREISNORUSH. Redacted II (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to uphold the status quo until a new consensus is reached. Your edit warring is extremely tendentious. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 23:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Who's changing the status quo here? Before you edited, it was "partial failure". After, "failure". Disturbing the status quo. And how is the label "partial failure" tendentious, when it's the majority view?

So, follow your own advice. Stop the edit war by not changing the status until (and only until) a new consensus is reached.

I also think that my idea of waiting a week for others to begin discussion is fair. It stops this needless stream of posts from both of us, and proves whether the conversation has been abandoned or not. Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

it's not your idea, it's Wikipedia policy that I stated above. Second, you stated:

There are five for "failure", including you.

There are six for "partial failure", including me.

Need I remind you of this WP:NOTDEM rule. 5 to 6 is absolutely not consensus, and Wikipedia does not hold votes for things in talk pages. So any atempt to use taht to further your argument or ram through changes is null and void. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm still participating in this discussion, and will continue to do so. Anyone claiming that I have abandoned this is incorrect. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I assumed that you weren't. It was a reasonable assumption, given that your contributions stopped suddenly.

Until a new consensus is reached, the article should remain as is. I believe that's fair. And that several other editors would agree with me here.

(Also, my idea of waiting a week for other editors, such as you, was based on Wikipedia policy) Redacted II (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please post the Wikipedia policy that's state's I have abandoned this discussion after 24 hours. I'm genuinely curious. If you want to inquire if someone has abandoned something, you can always leave them a message in the talk page. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I made an assumption, that, given how often you were posted, your pause meant you had left. I was wrong.

I don't see how my assumption affects what the proper label is. Redacted II (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

As they say, assuming makes an a** out of you and me.

If we would like to get into what "status quo" is, the sidebox had Failure as the outcome from the first edits after the msision until, what? The 23rd? I believe that using "status quo" to freeze a classification in a favourable condition, when the existence of such a status quo is very much debatable, is not the best choice. Sub31k (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

A potential compromise would be to label the launch as none of the three existing options. Given that B7/S24 were prototype vehicles, one could argue that a partial failure, success, or failure of the vehicle doesn't count as a launch of the SpaceX starship. Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't abandoned my position just because I haven't been able to reply for 24 hours. CtrlDPredator (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the discussion has shifted over to the "New Sidebar Proposal section"

I admit I made an assumption then, and I was wrong. Let's not have that dominate the rest of this discussion, as that would severely inhibit the entire point of this discussion. Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(Going to scoot this back over for readability) Starship is grounded by the FAA due to inflight failure on an orbital launch attempt with clear and explicit primary mission goals. And did not accomplish even a quarter of them, it is inline with how Wikipedia has been cataloging spaceflights, and test launches for over a decade to class this as failure. This is as unbiased and objective as it can possibly be. That's build on over a decade of precedent and consensus. It is the most clear, precise, and definite classification that we can use of this page for readers. Not something like ("It failed shortly into flight before the vast majority test objectives were completed, but actually it didn't fail, it mostly succeeded (what partial failure means) unlike every other failed test flight on this website because we want it to be different for no legitimate, unbiased reason"). Jrcraft Yt (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's primary goal was to clear the tower. The reason all but Terran 1s first flight are failures is that the payload was lost. With Terran 1, it should have been regarded as a partial failure, for the same reasons as Starship should be regarded as a partial failure.

But for all of the other launches, there was a payload, and it was lost. And your definition of partial failure is, IMO, incorrect. Partial Failure is a mixture of failure and success. It can mostly fail, but have some success, or mostly succeed, and have some failure.

However, there is still my compromise option. Since Grasshopper's explosion isn't regarded as a failure of Falcon 9, B7/S24s flight shouldn't be regarded as anything in relation to the SpaceX starship vehicle. This has precedent in Wikipedia, going back at least a decade (probably more).

So what do you say?

We label it as a prototype failure (like Grasshopper), or we just continue this argument for the foreseeable future?

(Also, scooting it over really helped with being able to read your points. Thank you for that) Redacted II (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If having no payload means that something is subject to different rules, than N1/6L should be considered a partial failure, too, since that had a dummy Soyuz 7K-LOK and LK. It was also a flight of an unproven vehicle simply attempting to achieve orbit.

I also disagree with the idea that the primary goal is to clear the tower. Such a thing is based on an informal comment, not an actual testing schedule. The testing schedule posted had a great number of flight objectives, almost all of which were not met. Flight plans were submitted to regulatory agencies. Should not these more formal definitions take priority over casual statements? Sub31k (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem, it was getting quite small. It's akin to Falcon 9 V 1.0 than grasshopper to F9 B5. There's no reason IMO to break Wikipedia precedent, but if you have one, I'm all ears. I have a compromise, however. Direct your attention to the Falcon 9 Wikipedia page Falcon 9 and glance at the sidebar. Part of the categories for launch statistics are broken up into versions of the vehicle (V1.1, V1.0, FT, B5, etc). If you want to separate this early version of starship out from the more planned, operational ones. We do it that way. (nextspaceflight does something similar for their starship page). The sidebar would be broken up into sections just like the F9 page, which would be precedent. Say "prototype" "tanker" "crew" "HLS lander" etc. That way, the later versions are separate, and it's clear that a prototype version failed. It would loke almost identical to the way CRS-7 looks in that page's sidebar. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That fits the objective, unbiased, the precedent, and "the should / should-not-be" parts of the arguments here.Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If some of you think this compromise is worth considering, I am happy to create a prototype sidebar with those changes, and put it here. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your compromise is, so far, the best option I've seen. Can you add a "prototype" of the sidebar here, so we can discuss any changes before it's added to the article? Redacted II (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I would also be fine with separating the vehicle out this way, for what it's worth. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 01:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 to separating the test flights from the final vehicle record. We should indicate clearly this was an exploratory prototype. The final starship might look significantly different once the prototype phase is complete. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

(shifting left for readability):

Maybe a new topic should be created to discuss the four options: partial failure, failure, prototype failure, or test launch?

This would be so we don't have to scroll through 90% of the talk page before responding. Redacted II (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Done below {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Recent Edit Revert

-Fnlayson I understand why you keep on reverting my edit. But, at least to me, it seems like the majority on the talk page are in favor of "partial failure", instead of "failure". So, keeping it labeled as "failure" is disregarding the discussions held here. Redacted II (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Read through the section above here concerning WP:Consensus. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets not start an edit war here. Given that the majority of posters in the talk page (including both of us) are in support of the label "partial failure", then one could arguably say consensus has been formed, especially when multiple sources have been added that call it a partial failure. Redacted II (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Redacted II: I think you have the wrong editor here. My only edit was a single revert of an anon IP (120.18.150.63) removing links. So you may want to strike that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll see what I can do. (EDIT: FIXED ISSUE) Redacted II (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

however I did just now add a dubious template to let readers know this is not completely true and it's being discussed here. We don't want to mislead our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's the best move until a consensus can be made Redacted II (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

New Sidebar Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I have tallied the votes and extracted the best performers from this discussion. Please comment in the section after this discussion to try to achieve consensus on one of them {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Proposal A

(A) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	0 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests Second stage tests: 9 Full vehicle orbital tests: 1 - did not achieve orbit

It is imprecise to say that the launch had "many objectives that were not met". Of course they planned a full mission profile from launch to splashdown but the chances of even just clearing the tower were low. The only mission goal was "fire it and see what happens" as supported by multiple sources. This is very much an exploratory prototype phase and not the final design. Reliable sources call this a success for a reason (see comments by Bill Nelson or Chris Hadfield https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171202753/spacex-starship-launch-explosion-cheer-success. It was a successful test and NOT an operational launch. Therefore it should not count as an operational launch failure. But should be clearly indicated as a test in the sidebar or not included at all in the sidebar and placed in an article such as Falcon 9 prototypes or List of SpaceX Starship flight tests. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

How about something like the sidebar on the right? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 16:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I proposed earlier! While I believe the label of partial failure is best, I'd support this option over Jrcraft Yt compromise. Redacted II (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you go into more detail about how you are interpreting this compromise? I'm not sure we are all on the same page. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jadebenn we had a slight edit conflict. I was reformatting to make things clearer. The proposal is on the right. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The idea of this compromise is that starship has had 0 operational flights, 9 second stage flight tests (if Hopper counts, otherwise 5), and 1 full stack flight test, which will simply be regarded as having not achieved orbit. This removes the entire success/partial failure/failure debate, as none of these are used in the sidebar. Redacted II (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of sub-10km hops in the launch history section. After all, Falcon doesn't have Grasshopper flights on its page. (The ship hops feature roughly the same OML as the "complete" second stage but are totally different in capability, profile, etc., and are not representative of the complete system.)

Also, might want to find language a bit more standardised than "full stack", which is something seldom seem outside this program.

I still maintain that informal comments by individuals do not override formally defined flight goals, in writing, which all point towards an orbital flight as part of the objectives. Sub31k (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I just included them as a proof of concept. We can decide what to actually include but right now we are not linking that excellent article (List of SpaceX Starship flight tests) which is a pity {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They were starship prototypes. They can arguably be included.

However, I can also see reasons to not include them. Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Does Hopper count as a second stage flight test, given how dissimilar it was to the current starship spacecraft? Different steel thickness (12.5 mm v.s 3 mm), different engines (1 r1 v.s 3 r2 and 3 (eventually 6) r2vac), different size, no nosecone, no flaps, different landing legs (three immobile legs v.s none).

One could say the same about sn5 and sn6. No nosecone, and no flaps. Redacted II (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - see first post {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• SUPPORT- so long as "full stack" is replaced with "integrated vehicle" in the sidebar Redacted II (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Considering also other comments by Sub31k how about "Full vehicle orbital test"? It's shorter {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That also works. Redacted II (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Outside of issues with interpretation of outcome, it's confusing and contradictory to list both zero and one launch simultaneously, in close quarters with one another. This lacks clarity and is definitionally predicated on forcing a change to outcome classification. Sub31k (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose mostly for the same reason as Sub31k, either a flight is a launch and it should be included in the sum, or it isn't. C9po (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are not launches of the final vehicle though. They are launches of exploratory and partial prototypes so they should be clearly indicated as such. For example: this prototype did not possess the capability to carry any kind of payload (no payload bay or cabin has been designed), or to land as no landing legs were installed (it was scheduled to crash in the ocean). So it could NOT be a full success under any circumstance as it was not capable of performing a full mission (vehicle is designed to land). This is not an ordinary rocket and the basic expendable rocket template is insufficient to describe it. The "final starship" doesn't exist yet and will be very different from those prototypes. Hence: Starship launches = 0 - Prototype orbital launches = 1. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE as articulated by Sub31k and C9po. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE as articulated by Sub31k. Zae8 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal A2

(A2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	0 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests Second stage tests: 9 Attempted orbital tests: 1 - did not achieve orbit

• Other ways of tweeking this sidebar proposal:

"Launch history: Attempted orbital test flights: 1 (did not reach orbit)"

"Previous test flight: 20 April 2023". 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:38BB:99D2:BDC4:C435 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That sounds very similar (but not identical) to the option being discussed above this one. With your permission, I'll move your post over to that discussion. Redacted II (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would stick to Proposal A as every test is an "attempt". No need to say it {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As it just predicates another debate, for both A and A2.
• Oppose Same argument as for A. Zae8 (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal B

Here was how I intended my proposal. consider this what a future, more filled out version would look like given a few years:

(B) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	30 Prototype: 3 · Tanker: 20 · Crewed: 5 · HLS: 2
Success(es)	27 Prototype: 2 · Tanker: 18 · Crewed: 5 · HLS: 2
Failure(s)	3 Prototype: 1 · Tanker: 2 · Crewed: 0 · HLS: 0
First flight	20 April 2023

This is based upon the same style and formatting of the Falcon 9 side bar. This effectively what I was going for. This allows up to break up the different versions, and add new one when needed. The same design would also work for recovery statistics. This is totally impartial, objective, and follows precedent set for over a decade to maintain consistency & compatibility with other articles. it provides more information to the reader, and separates out these early vehicles from further statistics. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevermind the previous edit, I'm an idiot and didn't read (it's also 2 am where I am, lol). This is fine by me. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I can settle for this. If we decide on that, I'm good with it. Bvbv13 (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure it's a good alternative. As long as we clearly indicate this was a test prototype. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused on the implementation here. In your new infobox I see "3" prototype launches. I see "2" prototype successes and "1" prototype failure. Given that most here seem to feel this last prototype launch was both a success and a failure (partial success), how would it be numbered in your infobox? Would you list it in both success and failure slots? Also, while the average reader will understand the terms prototype, crewed, and tanker, they will not know what the heck HLS is. For an infobox that is bad. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They're just showing what it could potentially look like after a few years. If that proposal was implemented, only one launch would be present Redacted II (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I fully understood it was just an example, but the terms must be understood before we should say yea or nay. How would this launch be applied in the infobox? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it would just show under failure(s):

1

Prototype: 1

And under success(es):

0

Prototype: 0 Redacted II (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

So we don't solve the problem of a "partial success", we just move it under a new heading and still call it a failure? We'd be right back to square one with more than 1/2 the editors understandingly upset with the nomenclature, and our readers still scratching their heads. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I think the option above this one is better. Redacted II (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Just saying, either way, there's about an even split in favour and opposing definition as a failure/success. There isn't any agreement either way. Sub31k (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I tried simulating how it would look with current data. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - That's the best proposal I think. It includes all the stats in that space, which is great. I'm good if we end up choosing that one! Cocobb8 (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1 Prototype: 1
Success(es)	0
Failure(s)	1 Prototype: 1
First flight	20 April 2023

I do not think that this kind of Falcon 9 style infobox makes sense, as falcon 9 was already flying when they started testing booster landings. With starship, there is only the promise of future tanker, crewed and HLS versions, so I don't see a reason to already list those versions in the Infobox at this point in time. C9po (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

RGV aerial has begun to spot HLS components at Starbase (the upper engine rings). So it's not a "promise of future HLS versions". Redacted II (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

These future variants can be included as they begin to materialise. For now, just what exists - the prototypes. Sub31k (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We will want to separate b9/s26s flight with b7/s24, as they are vastly different vehicles (similar to how grasshopper and F9 1.0 are different vehicles).

Maybe we can use prototype dev1 and prototype dev2 to differentiate? Redacted II (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is why I would simplify with the proposal above that keeps all the prototypes in a separate launch counter. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• Partial support - Proposal A or C simpler and more clear with current data {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - This is the option with the greatest clarity and the greatest extensibility. It avoids jargon, as well. Sub31k (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE- While this is a good option, the other options do better at portraying the flight as a "partial failure". Redacted II (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Fully support As other's said, this option reduces the complexity, technical jargon, and overcrowding of the sidebar. It's the one easiest to add to when new iterations come out because it doesn't impose a limit unto itself. It's the cleanest, and follows Wikipedia's quality standards as well as spaceflight Wikipedia precedent established for well over a decade. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - not necessarily on concept, but in implementation. Just putting the prototype launch under failure is against sourcing. And I don't think most here feel that is the proper categorization. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT Option B. To make my stance clear, I will not support any proposal that does not count the test launch as a vehicle failure, as to do otherwise would be blatantly inconsistent with its usage elsewhere on the wiki. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Splitting out the status is completely pointless and not a "compromise" when the whole reason the proposal was done to begin with was to add context to the failure. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT This one is easily the better out of the three. No question. As Jadebenn said, not I too won't support any proposal calling this OFT partial for the above reasons. Bvbv13 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE A reasonable reader reading about a rocket designed for reaching orbit expects the number of launches including orbital launches, not small-scale test lauches. Zae8 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal C

(C) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Test launches: 1 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C3) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 (did not achieve orbit) List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C4) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 Orbital = 0 Suborbital = 0 Atmospheric = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

(C5) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	Operational launches: 0 Successes = 0 Failures = 0 Partial = 0 Prototype launches: 1 Orbital Success = 0 Suborbital Success = 0 Suborbital Failure= 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

But zero launches? Even the last prototype was a launch. It did not achieve all they wanted, but it was a launch. Maybe we need an infobox that is simply broken into full flights and test flights.

• Starship
• Full launches 0

  Crewed 0
  Uncrewed 0

  Successes = 0

  Failures = 0

  Partial = 0

• Test launches 1

  Successes = 0

  Failures = 0

  Partial = 1

With this we could break it down into something the public would understand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent option Redacted II (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Now I don't know how to tweak "infobox rocket" to make something like this. The parameters don't give much room to manipulate so someone with the ability to tweak that template might be needed (or an offshoot template created). And my wording might not be kosher with how you guys usually handle things here. I'm just passing through because of my lifelong love of spaceflights starting with my dad working on the engines of the mercury, gemini, apollo, and spaceshuttle crafts at Rocketdyne. I want the discussion here to end in success with everyone at least "partially" happy with the outcome so when I see the final product it's truthful and understandible by all our readers. I usually handle Wikiproject Tennis issues but always dip my toe in items I have a passion about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Option B fits better with existing infoboxes and generally is a visually more "clean" template. Also, with variant proliferation, it will not take up so much vertical space as this one will, which may become relevant in the future.

Also, agree with @Jrcraft Yt and @Jadebenn in that the discussion of failure/partial failure/partial success/success should be split from the sidebar formatting. Sub31k (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You prefer option B but would this be an acceptable compromise? If yes maybe vote "Partial Support" so that your position is clearer. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Partial Support - A bit more intricate than proposal A though (which I prefer over this one). And I would change label to "Prototype launches" rather than "Test launches". {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

  Full support for option C2 or C3 {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT- This is an excellent option, for similar reasons as OPTION A. Redacted II (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT - I think more informative to separate prototype launches from operational launches. Finlaymorrison0 (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT - informative. 2001:2020:309:A924:D150:F4F9:1A5C:BF2 (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE, Potential to support - This one is ok. Though I disagree heavily with the "partial" classification. I've already made my points on that. (The point to separate out prototypes was so that they're failures would be cataloged separately). If that were to change. I will give my backing to this version instead of my own proposal immediately. I prefer C over C2, but both would Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jrcraft Yt: A query then. Under prototype would you simply list number of launches? Absolutely no successes/failures/partials? No outstanding/satisfactory/below average? Just a number of prototype launches only? I don't really disagree with you in concept since it's often rare that a prototype is 100% successful except the last few, and often the early models have abysmal failure rates as the scientists learn. However, if in prose on those prototypes it gets written that they were successful or failed or had mixed results, usually on wikipedia an infobox would state what's in prose. That can create a bit of a conundrum with people who edit these space articles all the time. They want to summarize the prose in the infobox for easy access. So would we also leave out the mention of success, failure, or partial even in the main body? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Sure. I would yield that if necessary to form a consensus. Though the point of separating them was to separate their reliability statistics, which would be removed by this. That's why I prefer sidebar 2, because that's *super duper* easy to implement into statbars, and is expandable. See List of Ariane launches for example. How wonderfull would that be? Jrcraft Yt (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When I look at proposal B (which is what I assume you mean by No. 2) I see the same issue you bring up here... Labeling prototypes into successes and failures. B does the exact same thing. And it's a bit more cluttered with tankers and Human Landing systems included. I think the worst attribute of B is that it focuses the sections of successes and failures rather than focusing on the mission type. I guess to each his own on esthetics. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

How about C2? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to support my "C4" option? In the prototype section, it sorts it into three categories: Orbital, suborbital, and atmospheric. This removes the labels of success, failure, and partial failure from that flight. Redacted II (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

C3 and C4, those could work. Prototype tests aren't really classified as pass/fail/partial as much as they are data collecting. The queries on those choices would be: C3, how do we write it after four prototype launches where 2 don't reach orbit and 2 do reach orbit? And with C4 (which is kind of a cool compromise), I assume there would be no designation if the test was fully supposed to take place in the atmosphere or only made it to the atmosphere? Likewise if the prototype is supposed to make it to orbit and orbit 7 times, and two prototypes have that designation while going up, one of them does it and one of them blows up on orbit 4. Would we just list them the same? Just trying to think of contingencies so there are no surprises a year from now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Problem with C4 is all tests from now on should be orbital. So that designation doesn't really make sense. As soon as one goes orbital there is no need to point out the old prototypes blew up. With C3 we can switch to something like: "Prototype launches: 4 (achieved first orbit on XX/XX/XXXX)" {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

{{u|Gtoffoletto}} you have some valid concerns. Allow me to clarify.

"Problem with C4 is all tests from now on should be orbital.": With C4, a prototype flight isn't put into it's planned "destination". After all, then the first flight would be in the orbital section, which is not where it belongs. Instead, here are the guidelines for flight labels:

If a prototype "fails" below 100 km, it goes into "atmospheric".

If a prototype does not achieve orbit, but "fails" above 100 km, then it goes into "suborbital".

If a prototype achieves orbit, then it goes into "orbital".

And, Fyunck(click), here' are my answers to your questions:

"I assume there would be no designation if the test was fully supposed to take place in the atmosphere or only made it to the atmosphere?": Such a flight would be designated '"atmospheric"

"Likewise if the prototype is supposed to make it to orbit and orbit 7 times, and two prototypes have that designation while going up, one of them does it and one of them blows up on orbit 4. Would we just list them the same?" I think both would fall into orbital, maybe a "partial orbital" category could be created if the need existed. Redacted II (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers. They satisficed my curiosity. Also, with the C4 thought that they should all be orbital from now on.... true for this rocket and this infobox, but that may not be the case for other prototypes in the future. We would want a multi-use infobox that we could use for other companies and other spaceships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE for the same reasons as Jrcraft Yt. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This whole debate is over the classification of the launch. Splitting out the status changes nothing if we are merely continuing the incorrect and inconsistent "partial failure" categorization. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I also don't like how we are conflating to issues here. It feels misleading. There should be one discussion as to whether this is a failure or not, and following that, a discussion how to contextualize it. Not this mixture of sidebar options and debate that's hard to read and follow if you do not already understand what is being discussed. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We're deciding between various options.

Anything is better than a digital screaming match (which is what we had before) Redacted II (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose too cluttered, and I don't support a partial label. Bvbv13 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The other options are equally, if not even more, cluttered than this. And C4 doesn't label the flight as failure, partial failure, or success.

So, does this objection apply to C4, or just c-c3? Redacted II (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Support C3 C3 seems the most accurate and avoids the debate of whether the vehicle failed or succeeded and leaves that to the article itself to describe. There is lots of nuance that needs to be discussed so summarizing that simply is impossible in the infobox. After we have a number of future Starship launches, how to categorize this launch will become much more apparent to most editors. At such time we can replace the infobox with a new version. Ergzay (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to not use an interim sidebar, as that would only lead to another debate in the future. It's much better to settle that now. Redacted II (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal D

(D) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Success(es)	0
Failure during flight	1
First flight	20 April 2023

Reviewing sources, I found that sources were very inconsistent about how the flight was characterised. Many did not make any calls at all; some characterised the flight as a failure; many used the word "partial", in or outside of quotation marks. There didn't exist grounds for consensus that way, even in source material. However, what is unequivocal is that the vehicle suffered a failure during flight that left it unable to complete the mission. Therefore, this new format (the prototype is a quick hack, I'm sure it could be made cleaner) uses that specific wording. A tooltip also is available to give readers basic context. A relatively broad wording is used to allow future test flights to fall under this category. Also, if there is debate on whether or not there should be a distinction made for prototype flights, that can be integrated too. If desired, it could be made to resemble Jrcraft Yt's infobox style in the future as variants come into being. Let me know how you think!

• Support I think that your D2 option has merit. Maybe change it to "prototype failure" instead? That clarifies the status of that vehicle. Redacted II (talk)
• Support This makes most sense. A reader reading about a spaceship designed for reaching orbit having X launches expects them to be orbital launches, not including limited tests near the ground. There were 1 (planned) orbital launches. 0 of them reached orbit.Zae8 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Now that the chart has been created this is the worst chart I think. We don't know if it is an operational flight or a test flight. And failure in flight doesn't really add anything to simply failure. You'd have to also include a "successful launch" if you have a "failed in flight", and I'm not sure that's worth it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

(D2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Vehicle failure during flight	1
First flight	20 April 2023

We don't know if it is an operational flight or a test flight.

The point is to avoid making placements altogether, because there is extensive disgreement about how that should be done, if at all.

And failure in flight doesn't really add anything to simply failure.

In my opinion, the wording contributes a lot. It shifts the meaning from being mission failure, something shrouded in controversy and subject to the non-consensus of sources, to vehicle failure, which is broadly accepted as having happened by media. Perhaps it would be more amenable to omit the success parameter altogether for now, and to change to it "Vehicle failure during flight?"

Also, I am very curious as to why you placed @Zae8's statement in strikethrough. Sub31k (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The strikethru was a complete error on my part. Sorry about that. The problem is the chart gives us these choices: Total launches, Success(es), Failure during flight, and First flight. What if it's a failure during launch? How do we know if it's a prototype or an operational flight, since design changes happen all the time with prototypes. Is it a first operational flight or a first prototype test? It doesn't seem like that chart helps readers in the way we need it to. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

No worries about the strikethrough, then. It's not always easy to read through dense wikitext. Personally, I had been hoping to avoid addressing the prototype-operational distinction altogether, because I had been afraid it would have been a pain point. In D2.1.1 and D2.1.2 I've put together some stuff that makes a distinction, though, with D2.1.2 mocked up for some point in the future with arbitrary values. Also, first flight is just used to list when the first time the vehicle flew was. Ultimately, my objective is to try and make something that reflects the sources - which for this test flight may mean rephrasing the question of vehicle failure or success. Given that Musk is already downplaying the odds of success for the next flight, it's likely that such a category will see more use in the future, as reporting will likely continue to be mixed about fail/success. Sub31k (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Sub31k: You know there's a lot of semantics used that are hard to apply to a prototype test flight when compared to an operational flight. Test flights and mishaps from Mercury to Starship are a lot different than having a mishap such as the Challenger disaster. Obviously the full prose can be more detailed, but this test flight is better described as the launch itself being successful, with the end result being malfunction/early self destruct. We know those items and the rest has scientists all over the map when applying a grade. That's tough to convey in an infobox without giving readers wikpedia opinion or original research. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that describing the launch as successful wouldn't accurately reflect the state of reporting and sources, which definitely do not have consensus on success. Rather, they are thoroughly mixed. You mentioned early space mishaps - I'll bring up the Atlas A prototypes, which have their fair share of parallels to last week's flight. (incomplete propulsion, early design very dissimilar to production, declared by some as a successful outcome despite reporting of failure based on negative results). That one is tabulated as Failure on two pages and as Partial Success on another, not that it changes things, just something a little fun to throw out there.

Anyway, were it based on delivering what I believed was correct, I would be vouching for unqualified Failure, still. But since none of the original options have basis in the reporting, I believe that avoiding the subject and shifting meaning, as some of the biggest, most relevant, and most reputable media outlets did, is the way to go. Sub31k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Again that's more semantics. Whatever you would like to call the liftoff and clearing of the tower... that was successful for the rocket. I simply called that part the launch. And your atlas example is a good one. Failure/success does not really convey to our readers, or adhere to the sources, what happened. We are misleading which we shouldn't do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It can be argued that none of failure, success, partial success, or partial failure are adequate, because of the broad spread of the sources and the extreme variation between them.

Personally, between them, I prefer "failure", because in the past, launches which are claimed as "learning experiences" are still categorised as failure when they fail to make their goal of reaching orbit, even if the failure was expected or if expectations were played down. Examples include Terran 1, Firefly Alpha and the List of Astra rocket launches. A rocket failure doesn't imply a disaster in the calibre of STS-51L.

That being said, the sources are far more important than precedent. Strictly following reporting of the launch, I believe that declaring that the vehicle (not the mission) suffered a failure allows the infobox to say something that all the reporting agrees on. I don't believe that's misleading readers, especially if more context is available on hover. Sub31k (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

We'd still have the same issue with "vehicle." yes it suffered a failure but it was not a complete failure when talking prototype. And hover has an issue in that some systems accessing this site don't have hovering ability. Hovering should be used only to augment meaning where the meaning can stand by itself even without hovering. If it said mixed results, that would be accurate even without hovering, and hovering would give the better context. Saying failure is inaccurate unless you hover and see the full context popup that tells readers that partial successes are also classified under failure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is why I think C4 is the best option. It categorizes this flight not by outcome (like failure/partial failure/success), but by where the flight "ended".

As for usage of hover, it is rarely checked by readers, even when they can check. So, an alternative is needed. Redacted II (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I find that with C4 it's possibly confusing since the categories could correspond to flight goals instead. i.e. "atmospheric" is easily interpreted to mean something similar to 2020-2021 test flights whose scope was restricted to atmospheric. It also downplays the fact that vehicles like that of 20 April 2023 are still intended to reach orbit and reenter, even if the expectations of success are low (similar to the maiden flight of Terran 1). Sub31k (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a "c5" option is desirable, with atmospheric and suborbital replaced with "suborbital intended" and suborbital unintended"?

This should reduce the "downplaying" of the desire to reach orbit. Redacted II (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That'd be logical. However, it is also a little MOS:EUPHEMISMistic, in my opinion. Generally, though, it's factually accurate. My main gripes are that it's a little clunky (in terms of formatting) and again the euphemistic nature of such a categorisation - it's something on the level of "rapid unplanned disassembly". Sub31k (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe "suborbital prototype failure" could work? Redacted II (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

But then it runs in the issue of sounding like the maximum objectives were suborbital, when this was marketted and advertised as an "Orbital Flight Test" before being renamed to IFT or SFT or whatever. Sub31k (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

How about "prototype failure in suborbital flight"? Redacted II (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

yes it suffered a failure but it was not a complete failure when talking prototype

This is the point of the wording "vehicle failure during flight." Taking a good look at sources, they are unequivocal about this - that the vehicle indeed suffered a failure that terminated the mission. It's by no means the same thing as outright "Failure" (even though I think that the latter is still accurate).

That doesn't convey to our readers the proper outcome when you leave it as only those two choices; success or vehicle failure during flight. You would need the two to be labeled; "vehicle success during all facets of flight" and "vehicle failure during any point of flight". That might convey the situation better to our readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? A successful mission is by default one which achieves its objectives through. A failure is (during operational missions) anything that leaves the mission unable to be completed. The creation of this new category is an in-between meant to remediate the fact that this launch is "grey" in its reporting. Also, there are more than just those two options for the future; please take a look at D2.1.2, which is from a little earlier. This category, if it pleases everyone, can be reserved for such "grey" prototype flights, depending on reporting. Sub31k (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I must have missed that press release on what constitutes a "successful mission." I don't think you and I will ever come very close on this issue, so I'm not going to keep wasting space here in figuring out your logic on this. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

partial successes are also classified under failure

This would only be true if it were widely agreed that the launch constituted a partial success in reporting, which is not the case. In most many such a claim is placed in "quotes" and in some the launch is directly states as failure. And of course a lot of reporting tends to focus on events rather than outcome, because of the confusion surrounding outcomes anyway. Sub31k (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? You're using failure when it is not widely agreed the launch was a failure in reporting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The point of this is to shift the meaning away from "launch was a failure" to "the vehicle failed and the mission was not completed", which is reported by almost all outlets, with the failure usually pinned on booster separation failure. The presence of the word "failure" does not automatically imply that all has been for naught. Sub31k (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Generally,it is preferable to have something for which there stands strong agreement for among secondary sources. Giving context through the popout, I hope, can provide additional context that elucidates the nature of events. That text can be changed if desired to be more accurate or representative. Sub31k (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Sub31k (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(D2.1.1) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Vehicle failure during flight	Prototype: 1
First flight	20 April 2023

(D2.1.2) Starship

Launch history
Total launches	1
Success(es)	Prototype: 2 Operational: 6
Vehicle failure during flight	Prototype: 3
Failure(s)	2
First flight	20 April 2023

(D3) Starship w. booster rocket

Launch history
Total launches	Total launches: 1 First launch: April 2023 Last return of spacecraft: Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023

• "Total launches: 1
  First launch: April 2023
  Last return of spacecraft: Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023"
  
  (It has been put [simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship&oldid=8800294 in the sidebar on another] English-language Wikipedia.) 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E58F:B3E4:6A45:413B (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I feel that [[user:Gtoffoletto[[ should be urged to make a sidebar-thingy, that is relevant for today's status.--That sidebar-thingy should preferably be shown on this talk page, first. Thanks 2001:2020:32F:A3C0:80E:FC2C:BB98:750A (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

They already have. Look right above this section of the discussion. Redacted II (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This "New Sidebar Proposal" sub-section is fine, but it doesn't seem to be solving the problem of the main section "Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023." It just moves the problem to a new place in the infobox. Per the conversation above with an editor, we'd have a new sidebar with a failure listed under prototype when most editors here want this as a "partial success/partial failure". How does the sidebar, with added prototype, help with this debate? Perhaps this sidebar discussion should not have been a subsection of "Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023" but it's own section entirely, since it's a separate entity. We need to figure out how to list a partial success And how to make a better sidebar to incorporate this terminology. Just listing it as a failure under prototype doesn't really solve anything. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As user @Jrcraft Yt pointed out, listing the recent starship launch as a success would be inconsistent with the standards applied to other launches. No orbit on an orbital flight, no success. There is precedent for marking an suborbital flight of a large Rocket a success (Ares I-X), but that one had an inert boilerplate upper stage and no goals beyond stage separation were set.

The current standard is imo consistent, while I don't see, how the "at least it left the launchpad"-definition could be consistent without basically eliminating the "failure" category. C9po (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's put it this way. I do not care one iota about how other launches have been handled here. If I look at this launch on this article at Wikipedia, and I I here what has been reported in nay sources, then it is a disservice to our readers to write it in a pov direction. All I care about is getting it right and telling our readers what happened using sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Well said, Fyunck(click).

And C9po, the argument of "it left the pad, therefore partial failure", only applies to test flights. If the primary goal was to clear the pad, (which it was in this case), then it should not be labeled as a failure.

But please, let's try to keep the arguing to a minimum. Redacted II (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It is a disservice to readers of the article to apply different standards in regards to launch status in this article than in other articles on other launch vehicles. Being consistent here would not be a POV issue for myself. CtrlDPredator (talk) 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Consistency is important, and it's my perspective that formal, written objectives are not nullified by informal statements made in the interest of damage control. Sub31k (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Lets not set off this debate (again), when we're closer than ever to a consensus Redacted II (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are in support of the other option. Redacted II (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That depends on how this new sidebar is handled. You said yourself "the majority of posters in the talk page are in support of the label 'partial failure'." Whether we use partial failure or partial success is no matter, but putting it under "failure" alone would go against what you said the majority wanted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The other sidebar option has the label of 0 launches, as the SpaceX Starship orbital test flight was not a flight of the actual system. Just as a prototype flight that "did not achieve orbit". Redacted II (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

By this standard, we might be compelled to view things like SM-65A Atlas's in-flight failures as "less-than-failures", because they were less than full fidelity prototypes aimed at getting the SM-65 into service by iterative development.

There is plenty of documentation for 20 April's flight objectives, provided through the website, through the FAA filing, etc. Almost all were not met. Sub31k (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the whole discussion here. Across Wikipedia we always used a consistent scheme: If it was intended to reach orbital velocity (the company publishing a timeline where it does is definitely an indication of that) and did not then it's a failure. If it reaches an orbit but not the intended one (within reason) or if only some payloads make it then it's a partial failure. We have done this with every rocket, no matter how much people expected from the flight, and no matter how much the company tried to manage expectations. Why does this flight trigger so much discussion? --mfb (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a test launch of a prototype (not even close to an "operational" vehicle). The primary goal was for it too clear the tower. The secondary goal was for it to reach orbit. 1 success and 1 failure in the goals means partial failure.

However, several compromise options are being discussed. That's how Wikipedia is managed. As far as I'm aware, simply labeling this flight as a partial failure or a failure would be impossible, as a consensus would never form. Redacted II (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, Apollo 13 was expected to land people on the moon. The company also published a timeline for every item, which I have somewhere. It failed to land those two guys on the moon, but it was far from a failure per NASA. It's not so hard to understand why some would look at a prototype, that had a great launch but failed in separation, might be looked at differently. The company said it only had maybe a 50/50 chance at getting to orbit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree with this analogy. The Apollo 13 failure occured long after the Saturn V had any impact on the mission. It is not inaccurate to categorize it as a successful Saturn V launch. It was not a successful mission, but that's not what's being counted here. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you'd be wrong because the "successful-failure" mission of Apollo 13 is well documented. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Apollo wasn't the launch vehicle though... CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The Saturn V was the launch vehicle for Apollo 13, it's launch was a success. The issues with the SM are not related to the launch.

Apollo 6's launch however was a partial failure. Engine No.2 failed in the second stage, but the control wiring intended for that engine actually went to engine No.3 so when the signal to shutdown No.2 was sent, it instead shut down a good working engine No.3, resulting in a lower than intended orbit despite a longer burn. The third stage engine was used to correct the orbit, but then failed to restart for TLI. They then changed to an alternate backup plan for the remainder for Apollo 6 and complete other objectives.

NASA said it was "a good job all around, an excellent launch, and, in balance, a successful mission ... and we have learned a great deal" but also more importantly that "will have to be defined as a failure". CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I am admittedly getting quite rankled that the objective of some seems to be to avoid any listing that has a variation of "failure: 1," regardless of its accuracy. I am willing to add context that it was the failure of a prototype vehicle on a test launch (and thus not wholly unexpected) but any proposed solution or compromise that does not accurately categorize it as the failure of a vehicle seems hard to reconcile with the usage of the term across the entire rest of the wiki's spaceflight articles. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 02:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't get rankled. Everyone is doing their best to express what they read with what we put here on Wikipedia, you included. Sometimes people just disagree, and sometimes sources disagree. This prototype didn't explode on the pad in a fireball. If it winds up going under some "partial failure" header or "mixed results" header, as long as it conveys to readers what happened all should be well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

But we have other failed test launches that completed more mission objectives than Starship that are still classed as failures.

The Terran 1 launch just last month that passed max q and completed stage separation, but the second stage didn't ignite. That is marked down as a launch failure, because it is. We shouldn't treat Starship any differently. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

How we at wikipedia have listed items in the past really doesn't concern me as much as getting the correct info to the population that reads it. I'm sure we could go tit for tat of partial failures. Apollo 6 was a partial failure. It planned to go to the moon per all the paperwork. The first stage fired but the second stage lost a couple engines... this resulted in a poor low orbit insertion. They went ahead to fire up stage three for moon departure and zip... no ignition. It's considered a partial success. For more optimistic goals than the starship prototype. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We do need to be consistent and impartial else we are misleading people reading these articles. Saying that you don't care about how other launches are categorised and wanting to apply a different standard to Starship launches is straying outside neutrality and pushing a POV. I don't think that is a valid reason to treat this launch differently to all others. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You are twisting my words. We do need to be impartial, on that we agree. We use sources and we go from there. I don't care how other launches get categorized on wikipedia if they are wrongly categorized. Your words above are POV if you don't go by sources. We treat this launch like everything else, backed by sources. If the other articles are wrong we would look at each, check the sources, and correct them if they are also POV and not backed by sources. You seem to want to follow a script even if it's a bad script. I don't follow that mantra nor do I agree with it. I am helping with this article right now, not a bunch of others that could be wrong if I decided to look at them also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree and I am sharing those concerns. I feel that the push to avoid listing it as a launch "failure" is a bit of a POV concern. CtrlDPredator (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This section is way too long so I haven't read it completely but I'm not so concerned with the near term value of whether this is a failure or a success but more concerned with how this will be treated in the long term. This flight is a non-revenue flight, without a payload (or even a payload bay), without landing functionality and without refueling capability. It will be a functionally completely different vehicle from the Starship vehicle that just flew. I'd argue thus that this vehicle that just flew and that eventual vehicle would neccessarily have different article pages, in the long term, and thus this failure wouldn't count against the failure count of that eventual vehicle. Maybe this can help to resolve the argument. Part of the problem here is that Spaceflight has never been done this way before so we don't have the right words, not just as wikipedia editors, but in the spaceflight community as a whole on how to describe this flight. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Ergzay (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you this. For this launch and even Terran 1, they are discussing some of the same things at the NASA forum and in other places on the internet. No one is quite sure how to categorize these launches. However, wikipedia does not make the news... we are not a source. We simply report the facts the sources give us. Sources are certainly not calling this launch a success, but sources are calling this launch a failure, a partial failure, and a partial success. heck it's even being debated by overseas space agencies. Space experts in mainland China are calling it a failure. But space experts in Hong Kong are calling it a moderated success given the company main goals were to "clear the launch pad, collect data, and get ready to go again". So the fact we are arguing about how to categorize it is really no surprise. No matter what we have in the infobox we "must" be informative and lay out the failure to partial success sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors historically have done a lot of original research and synthesis on many spaceflight articles just to fill in basic statistics so we may eventually have to do the same here again at some point. Maybe some kind of splitting of this and future test launches into a separate category from the "operational" starship launches. In that case I'd just omit any statistics on "failure" or "success" or "partial success" as it's a test, and simply describe the outcome of the test and what occurred without labeling it success or failure. If we had to pick a term though I'd actually prefer to use the word "pass" here rather than labeling it a success or failure, if I had to pick a term, as that's what you use with tests. Ergzay (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay I think you views are in line with my proposal A above. Separate clearly this launch as a "Prototype launch" and not a launch of the final vehicle {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like a good idea. Ergzay (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ergzay Express your support then :) {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I just did didn't I? Ergzay (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Above this "discussion" subsection, you can provide support to any of several options by typing: SUPPORT, followed by listing your reasons.

I hope this was a helpful clarification. Redacted II (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Note - On chart C2 I used the word "partial" as opposed to "partial failure" or "partial success". This left it more ambiguous, and it was on purpose given the strong feelings here. The term "partial" is used extensively here in discussion and I went with the flow. Thinking about it, another term that could be used is "mixed" or "mixed results" instead of "partial." I'm not sure it's better, it's just an option in case someone hadn't thought about it. Whatever gets the most people saying "I can live with that compromise" is what we should strive for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add one more thing to this discussion, as Wikipedia is not a source, we should look at how other organizations are cataloging this launch. Some of the most notable ones in no particular order:

Gunter's space page: Failure. (https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/starship-s24.htm).

Nextspaceflight: Failure. (https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6754)

Rocketlaunch-live: Failure (https://www.rocketlaunch.live/launch/full-stack-test-flig)

Jonathan McDowell's Space Report: Failure (https://www.planet4589.org/space/jsr/latest.html)

Space Launch Schedule: Failure (https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/launch/starship-integrated-flight-test/)

Please add more if you find them. but at this point, it's a clear POV & original research problem to declare partial. That's be more than enough sources to show consensized failure. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Really?, this is a rather biased list of yours, and I don't think very helpful.

Hong Kong Laboratory for Space Research: Moderated success (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3217893/chinas-space-enthusiasts-debate-elon-musks-starship-explosion-expensive-failure-or-partial-success)

New Scientist: not a complete failure (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2370122-spacexs-enormous-starship-rocket-finally-launched-and-then-exploded/)

Singularity Hub: Partial Success (https://singularityhub.com/2023/04/21/spacex-starship-launch-hailed-as-a-success-despite-exploding-mid-flight/)

Itf Science Space and Physics: Partial Success (https://www.iflscience.com/spacexs-starship-lifts-off-and-explodes-in-space-68557)

Asronomy.com: Partial Success (https://astronomy.com/news/2023/04/spacex-starship-explodes-minutes-after-launch)

Gulf News: Partial Success (https://gulfnews.com/world/elon-musks-starship-successfully-lifts-off-then-explodes-in-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly-1.1681987094424)

UK Telegraph: considered a win (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/20/spacex-starship-rocket-launch-watch-live-elon-musk/)

The Space Review: it may be years before we know whether to count this abbreviated test flight as a success or not (https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4572/1)

Aerospace consultant Linda Forczyk: “a partial success, or a successful failure.” (https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/science-verify/was-the-spacex-explosion-a-success-or-a-failure-a-little-of-both-starship/536-c2def0fe-6cc0-42b9-93a6-7a0ce3d8141a#:~:text=Aerospace%20consultant%20Laura%20Forczyk%2C%20in,the%20atmosphere%2C%E2%80%9D%20she%20said.)

USA Today: Partial Success (https://ustoday.news/the-explosion-of-the-spacex-spacecraft-was-intentional/)

CBC News Canada: Partially Successful (https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/spacex-starship-success-1.6823172)

Los Angeles Times: Successful Failure (https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2023-04-25/elon-musk-spacex-starship-nasa-moon-landing)

I think it would be even more POV and original research to declare this launch a failure. There are plenty of sources on all sides but to simply plop this into the fail category is quite wrong based on sourcing. Listings such as yours and mine are pointless and non-helpful at this point of discussion, but for you to say that using "partial" is clear POV & original research is completely wrong and you may owe an apology to those that are arguing the other side of the issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get into moral issues, now. Sub31k (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, many sources, mostly Musk friendly space enthusiasts or because of lazyness, are just repeating Musk's wording of a "partial success" uncritically. But obviously the launch was a failure. Even the self-destruction mechanism failed. If NASA had done this, no serious person would have called it a "partial success", the big failure would be all over the press. And "getting valuable data" does not make it a success. Wikipedia should be neutral, no Musk spin. Zae8 (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't insult each other's arguments by labeling it as "POV" and "Original Research". They're not. All the two of you are doing are making fools of yourselves.

We are this close (darn lack of emoji's) to reaching a compromise option. Don't let your bickering ruin that.

So please, let's scale this back to a civil discussion, okay? Redacted II (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Partial Failure" in the infobox is not a useful compromise, as it compromises, what the intended purpose of a spaceflight infobox is. "Failure" "partial failure" and "success" have different definitions in this context, than they might have to SpaceX. Of course, this launch attempt was useful for SpaceX and further Starship development, see the sources @Fyunck(click) listed.

But "the company learned something" isn't the definition, by which a launch is counted in the infobox. The infobox definition of failure is "rocket failed before achieving important flight goals", and there is no doubt, that starship did. The sources @Jrcraft Yt listed are enough evidence for that.

The only solution that is consistent with the facts, the sources, and minimizes POV issues, is listing the launch as a failure in the infobox and mentioning in the article, that SpaceX and media considered the flight (partially) successful at gathering data. C9po (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

While partial failure is, IMO, the best label, we can disagree on that.

There are also several compromises that don't list partial failure in the sidebar. Look at options B and C4. B labels it as a "prototype failure", which is more accurate than just "failure", and C4 labels it as an "atmospheric flight", as it never left the atmosphere. Redacted II (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No problem labelling this a "prototype failure". I have a problem with calling this just a "failure" as this was not the final vehicle by any means. Several proposals above make this distinction and in my view work fine. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

C9po, Good summary of the facts and situation. Zae8 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Do we need sources to tell us that
  
  1+1 ≠ wreckage (booster) + wreckage (spacecraft)
  ?
  
  
• Total launches, booster-with-spacecraft: 1
• First launch: April 2023
• Latest return of spacecraft:
  Wreckage fell to Earth in April 2023
  
  

In regard to partial-this-or-that: show me a returning spacecraft that can be (largely) re-used, and I will show you a mission that is partial success (negative spin) or partial failure (positive spin).

In the cases where a spacecraft (or its parts) crash into the ground: perhaps one can use sources about how to polish a turd, and the crashed spacecraft can be transformed into a polished entity (with a positive spin). 2001:2020:32F:ECE9:E11F:F5E2:9E0E:3BA4 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

What versions got the most support?

We have a lot of support here but the discussion is too long. We should select the best options and run a formal approval from scratch to see what editors think. I think we have support to fix this. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, that would violate the consensus. Redacted II (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? What consensus? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus for a label of failure. Redacted II (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of the proposals here label the flight as a failure. The point is to say it was a failure but providing more context. So it would not violate that consensus. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 10:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I dont support failure at all, at minimum prototype failure. Fehér Zsigmond (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Final sidebar proposal vote

I've tallied the results of the discussion above to identify the best performers to try and reach a final consensus. I think we can extract those two final candidates keeping in mind the consensus that the flight test should be labeled as a failure and not a partial failure. The infobox should provide context but not change the outcome of the flight. So let's see if we have consensus for one of those options! {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Option B got: 7 supports and 3 oppose

Option B Best Performer (preview)
Starship Launch history Total launches 1 Prototype: 1 Success(es) 0 Prototype: 0 Failure(s) 1 Prototype: 1 First flight 20 April 2023

Options C also got: 8 supports an 2 opposes

Option C Best Performer (preview)
Starship Launch history Total launches Operational launches: 0 Prototype launches: 1 Successes = 0 Failures = 1 List of SpaceX Starship flight tests

Support or Oppose below:

• SUPPORT C and Partial Support B: I think C is superior . It provides context while maintaining a clear indication that the flight was a prototype flight test. B is still better than now {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT B: While I really like C (I even proposed a few variants of C), B is more consistent with other articles. It also provides the same context as C (clearly labeling the flight as a prototype, while also obeying the RFC's consensus).

To be honest, if more people (especially those who disagreed with me in the RFC) support C over B, then I'll change to support C as well. Redacted II (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any samples where "prototype" is used? Zae8 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Think of "prototype" as a version of the vehicle, like Falcon 9 v1.0. Redacted II (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean any non-Musk article. Zae8 (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH for reasons discussed. SUPPORT B only when forced to choose between two bad choices. SUPPORT B However, I think both proposals would contradict standard Wikipedia rules and make a special case for Starship by making the distinction "prototype". See my other discussion contributions where I discussed that in detail, and see for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V. See also my previous question. Zae8 (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT C Because it keeps it nice and clear that no operational launches have happened yet, and is easier to read. Cocobb8 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  However, we should probably keep it until an active flight has occured. Cocobb8 (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH for reasons in which we have already discussed infinitely many times. DASL51984 ^{(Speak to me!)} 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
• OPPOSE BOTH, leave as it is now - This distinction prototype/non-prototype is also going to be increasingly harder to make as the Starship program goes on. It also makes the infobox bulkier. I would suggest to simply leave it as it is now. By the time Starship reaches a large amount of flights, the early developmental failures will be a small number anyway. There is no consensus. CodemWiki (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  However, look at Falcon 9. All the flights are divided between the different versions (v1.0, v1.1, and FT). Something similar should be done here. Redacted II (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Starship is so incremental, there is no distinct version really. In hindsight, your solution to make a single a distinction between prototypes and non-prototype might actually the best compromise then. I agree.

  But between Option C and Option B, I would support B. Preferably however : none. CodemWiki (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Here is my logic. I'm curious, at what step do we diverge? Knowing that should make any debate/discussion a lot easier.

  1: Since the RFC declared this flight a failure, then prototypes belong in the infobox.

  2: Different versions of the same vehicle belong in the infobox.

  3: As prototypes belong in the infobox, then prototypes are a version of the vehicle.

  4: All prototypes are "one" version, as they have major differences from functional vehicles. This has precedent in both launch vehicle prototypes and spacecraft prototypes.

  5: As prototypes are a version of the vehicle, they should be labeled as a different version in the infobox. Redacted II (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Treating SpaceX in a special way is no good choice. Wikipedia is no marketing department for Musk. Zae8 (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Marketing department for Musk" is not why we are doing this. SpaceX's development approach is unique in the rocket industry as it is built on the rapid iteration of prototypes. There is no single "Starship" like there is a single "Saturn V" vehicle which is always the same. Each flight will involve a very different prototype/vehicle until a final design version is reached. This has already been dealt with in the Falcon 9 article by highlighting the different versions being flown. We should remain consistent with precedent here and provide the necessary context to allow readers to understand what is happening correctly. Not doing so would break precedent for no reason. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, your paragraph is marketing for Musk, especially your statement "SpaceX [...] is unique".

  In reality, basically every space company is unique. Because more or less every space company does something different and new compared to others. Wasn't the Apollo program "unique" as well? Wasn't the ISS unique as well? Wasn't the Spaces Shuttle unique as well? Wasn't the vertical landing of New Shepard unique as well? And so on. The "only company X is unique!" is typical marketing buzz.

  If every article in Wikipedia is "unique", then you can forget about every categorization and every infobox.

  Most articles about Musk company are to more or less degree fan-articles, often bordering to fan-fiction. Let's try to fix that instead of making it worse. Zae8 (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  As I said: "the development approach is unique". It is radically different from Apollo, Space Shuttle, ISS, etc. and also New Shepard. They have already built tens of prototypes which is "unusual" in the space industry. So we need to inform readers about this key difference by providing context. Even many editors don't seem to understand this. It has nothing to do with marketing. This is why the SpaceX Falcon 9 article specifies the versions flown. We should remain consistent on this article. Why should it be different? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but also for the Space Shuttle "the development approach [was] unique", it was radically different from Apollo, etc etc. etc. Or just look at Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Software the "development approach [was definitely] unique", they basically invented Software_engineering. And sorry for breaking the news to you, but there will be also future (or existing) ompanies after SpaceX which again will use a unique new development approach. Your view that "there is Musk and there is the rest of the world" is a classical marketing-bubble distortion.

  I understand that you Musk fans are frustrated by the explostion (you definitely would never insist on the "prototype" wording if the flight would have been successful), but this is no reason to break Wikipedia conventions.

  The intention of the info boxes in Wikipedia is to make same metrics easily consumable and easily comparable. The body of the article is the place for describing all the differences. If you want to make special rules for Musk, then create wikelonedia.com. Zae8 (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  First of all @Zae8: immediately stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and try to WP:AGF. Your accusations to me or anyone else are totally WP:UNCIVIL so stop now or I will have to report you.

  Me and several other editors have proposed the changes above to improve the article and it has nothing to do with Elon Musk. Also it is a very minor issue so please calm down and relax.

  What you state is misinformed. The development approach of Apollo or the Shuttle program are absolutely the same and are radically different from SpaceX's approach. SpaceX's unique rocket development approach (which is inspired by agile software development methods) is well described by reliable sources (e.g. The company has been known to embrace fiery mishaps during the rocket development process. SpaceX maintains that such accidents are the quickest and most efficient way of gathering data, an approach that sets the company apart from its close partner NASA, which prefers slow, methodical testing over dramatic flare-ups.[1][2]

  This radically different approach is WP:Notable and should be taken into account in any article about SpaceX to correctly inform the readers. This is why the Falcon 9 article mentions all the different versions that have flown. There is no reason to break precedent here and we should indicate the different versions of Starship that have flown. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 18:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  The Space Shuttle had a relatively standard development program. So did Apollo. Just because they developed various new technologies does not make their development cycle "unique". What is "unique" about Starship's is that they launched a Prototype that wasn't 99.9% identical to other

  As for "(you definitely would never insist on the "prototype" wording if the flight would have been successful)", no, actually, I would. I cannot speak for other editors, but I know what I'd be saying.

  "And sorry for breaking the news to you, but there will be also future (or existing) companies after SpaceX which again will use a unique new development approach. Your view that "there is Musk and there is the rest of the world" is a classical marketing-bubble distortion" Please stop your stream of insults, calling everyone who disagrees with you a "Musk-Fan".

  And also, read some of my previous comments. Again, I cannot speak for other editors, but I state that if (insert organization here) flies a prototype vehicle, that is not almost identical to the final version, that flight would be clarified as prototype. Redacted II (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's getting personal, good time to stop this discussion here. I don't have to add something new anyway. I wish you all best. Zae8 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to offend you. I was trying to give you advice, as has been given to me in the past. Redacted II (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, and I didn't feel offended. All is good. Zae8 (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH leave it as is for now, there is no need to change it for reasons that we have gone over so many times already. CtrlDPredator (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just curious, but when an "operational" (not a prototype) starship flies, would you still be opposed to either option B or C? Redacted II (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Do I miss something, or wasn't there the option of "keeping it as it is now"? Doesn't this make the whole "final sidebar proposal vote" procedure invalid? I mean, maybe the "keeping it as it is now" has strongest support, but that option was never offered, and so people had no chance to express support for it. Zae8 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Just vote to oppose to keep it as-is. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did this. But this summary "Option B got: 7 supports and 3 oppose" and "Options C also got: 8 supports an 2 opposes" above seems to be misleading, because previously people hadn't the option of "OPPOSE". Zae8 (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course they had the option to oppose. And they did. That's why I reported the oppose votes in the final tally. I selected the options with the largest support. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No, you just added "Option B got: 7 supports and 3 oppose" and "Options C also got: 8 supports an 2 opposes". But you never added "opposing both" / "status quo" as equal option. Zae8 (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a list of votes in that sense from the past discussion. So what you are asking was impossible. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The three options could simply have been: Keep current version, Option B, or option C. Zae8 (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I see you are new here: you can read Wikipedia:Consensus to learn more on this subject. This is how Wikipedia usually works. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH There's already been a huge row about this, with the end result being a decision to keep things as is. Sub31k (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Sub31k (and @Jadebenn below) the RfC on the "failure" has nothing to do with this discussion on the sidebar. All the proposed edits here clearly indicate the flight test as a failure in line with that RfC (which I agree with). The point is to provide context on the fact that different versions of Spaceship will fly and provide that context to the user which might not be aware that what was flown was an exploratory prototype. The Falcon 9 sidebar does the same and clearly indicates the version of rocket flown. Why break precedent here and misinform readers? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the distinction is currently relevant, but it's something I'd be open to revisiting when more versions of Starship have flown. I doubt the Falcon 9 article made any sort of distinction after its first launch. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 21:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am glad that your open to future considering of this option.

  Although, I have a compromise option:

  We don't implement option B or C yet. We leave it as is. No clarifying note, nothing. Just:

  Failures 1

  As soon as a non-prototype vehicle launches, we immediately implement the agreed upon option.

  Would that be agreeable to you? Redacted II (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I actually agree with you @Redacted II. We might need to create a separate Rfc to discuss this though. This is getting a little ridiculous for only minor layout changes!! Cocobb8 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Great! Redacted II (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have a crystal ball. If the topic should be revisited based on future events it would make the most sense to revisit it when said events happen. By that I mean to say that it would be something editors would discuss when said context has changed. We can't make any commitments right now. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 00:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why it's a compromise option. It's not 100% what you want, but it's far from being 100% what I want either.

  If you have any ideas on changing my compromise idea, please state them. Redacted II (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't work like this. You can't decide something for the future @Redacted II. And I agree with @Jadebenn that we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. We just need to report what has happened now. And right now, what has flown is a prototype and not a final vehicle. This should not wait until we have a final vehicle. That final vehicle might never come and Starship will have always only have flown as a prototype. That won't change ever. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder Redacted II (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  How about this:

  We'll create a third compromise option. A new topic can be created for this purpose.

  As other editors voice their concerns, the compromise option would be changed, to address those concerns.

  Once everyone is satisfied, then we can officially propose it.

  (Also, do you know how to put a comment in strike-thru? My previous response was impressively non-related to your comment) Redacted II (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  10 Propose change options

  20 No consensus

  30 Propose more change options

  40 Goto 20

  Zae8 (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The idea is to create an "ideal" compromise, one that is agreed upon by both sides.

  And the current loop of propose->reject->propose will get this article no where. Redacted II (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Welcome to Wikipedia @Zae8. That is how this encyclopaedia works. See WP:CONSENSUS to learn more on this process. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 11:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Just a friendly reminder, Gtoffoletto, try to be more polite. Redacted II (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry if that sounded scathing. It was an honest welcome :-) Wikipedia works exactly like Zae8 wrote. You keep making proposals until consensus is achieved. WP:BRICK BY BRICK {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 12:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your comment was scathing? Let me write a real scathing comment:

  10 Musk fans want to add some SpaceX whitewash marketing

  20 Rejected by Wikipedia community

  30 Musk fans don't give up, trying to find a "compromise", "improve", "clarify", because normal Wikipedia people don't understand how "failure" is "success", how genius Musk is and how special, how unique and how different SpaceX is, and why normal conventions must not apply to SpaceX.

  40 goto 20

  And no worry, I still feel welcome, and I hope you all feel still welcome despite my comments, too :-)

  Zae8 (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Please stop with the insults, or I will report you. Redacted II (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's not meant as an insult, sorry if you felt that way, it's just a fancy way of pointing it out WP:PROMOTION. Zae8 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  How is a label of Failures 1 (prototype) promoting SpaceX? It's 100% accurate, can be backed by sources, and is rather neutral. Redacted II (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm already dizzy from running in circles all the time. Zae8 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Zae8 and @Redacted II, I must remind you to be WP:NICE in discussions. Please try and discuss in short statements, backing up what you say by relevant sources and providing examples. Also, do not use irony or other forms of satire to support your arguments. All we are trying to do here is reach a consensus, not argue on why the way we think is best. All we can do now is wait and see what the outcome of the rfc is. Cocobb8 (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  While I'm not sure about the irony/satire thing, and while I would consider arguing for why each of us thinks what is best (like Redacted II and I are doing) is part of reaching a consensus, I see your point and appreciate it. Zae8 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @Zae8. I am not against arguing, and I totally agree that it is part of reaching the consensus. Just keep in mind that you CAN argue, but it doesn't do anything to keep going at the other. Cocobb8 (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am not trying to be satirical.

  And I do my best to use short statements, but sometimes it simply isn't possible.

  I will try to improve, however. Redacted II (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think "satitical" was a reference to my comments, not yours. And I think my comments were longer than yours. Zae8 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  In any case, Cocobb8 is right that the discussion has gotten out of hand, to which I contributed. Zae8 (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  The discussion is salvageable.

  Now, my question remains: How is the label of Failures 1 (prototype) promoting SpaceX?

  It's neutral, it can be backed by sources, and is clearly accurate. Redacted II (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH It feels like there is a consistent effort to undermine and water down the RfC. The sidebar discussion was made redundant in the face of an overwhelming majority in favor of maintaining the current status of 'failure.' – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 18:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH, asking people to choose between two options that both go against the previous discussion is absurd. --mfb (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @mfb what do you mean? The proposals all clearly indicate the flight was a failure as I've stated in my original post. You don't think the two proposals are clear that the flight was a failure? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what is unclear. The current article version is favored by most, introducing the 10th vote where all options change something isn't going to change that. Despite being presented as "B or C" vote, you have a 2/3 majority for "oppose both" which you didn't even include as option. --mfb (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Voting Oppose is obviously always an option and I specifically asked to: Support or Oppose below: in my initial post (maybe read it first!). I feel like most editors are voting against this just out of frustration. This is a different proposal than what has been voted in the past and had wide support. I don't think that is very clear. Can you explain exactly what issues you see with the proposals rather than reference other past votes (which have been taken into account)? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Not really. The "Final sidebar proposal vote" section was, well, started in a problematic way, by not counting or explicitly offering the status quo. Zae8 (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this is also my concern. Zae8 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with you here.

  Not including an "oppose" option, and just assuming that editors would assume it too exist, was wrong, and should be corrected. Redacted II (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is not how Wikipedia works. It is WP:NOTAVOTE. People should discuss the merits of each proposal. Not debate on the methods. Discuss the issues with those proposals, everything else is just bureaucracy. What problems do you see with the proposal? Why do you oppose it? {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  The issue with these proposals is that editors have decided to maintain the box in a certain way, just a little scroll down the page. The opposition to them is well documented there. The method being employed here obscures that. That's why they are being criticised. Sub31k (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. I assume Gtoffoletto is operating in good faith but it's very frustrating to feel like a debate that was already settled is being reopened endlessly. I understand there is room for nuance and clarification of the earlier consensus, and that consensuses may be revisited and are not iron laws to be slavishly followed forever. However, considering the recency of the prior discussion plus the overwhelming support for portraying the events in one particular way, many of these discussions feel like attempts to "water-down" the previously-stated views of contributors. Again, not saying that's the intention, just that's how it can feel and why it's so frustrating. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I can say that, as someone who has been pushing for some manner of clarification since before the RFC closer, the intention of this clarification is not to "water-down" the consensus.

  If anything, I believe it augments the consensus. With the label of "Failures 1 (prototype)", it provides context to the failure (stating what failed). Redacted II (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

  I might have missed some discussion but has this topic been already discussed? I’m just aware of the RFC in which it was decided to label the flight as a failure. And those sidebar changes don’t modify that. The proposal is to provide context of which vehicle flew by indicating the versions that flew. Or am I missing something? Maybe the original title of this discussions is confusing editors. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 07:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BOTH WP:CONSENSUS says Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable). There is clear consensus against any and all of these proposed changes to the sidebar. It's WP:IDHT/WP:DE/WP:TE to constantly make new "proposals" and "compromises". "Consensus" does NOT mean we have to "compromise" and satisfy everyone or any such thing. It doesn't require unanimity. The "RfC on infobox failure status" was clearly and correctly already closed. Leijurv (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that most outcomes will not satisfy all but most editors. Cocobb8 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Leijurv absolutely consensus is not unanimity. Unfortunately, I think here editors are mistaking what is being proposed because the title of the discussion is old. My mistake in not starting a separate discussion I think (the proposals are not directly mine BTW. I was just trying to "moderate" this). None of the proposals are related to the "failure" status which is always clearly indicated. But editors are misinterpreting it as such. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 09:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  No, I think that's missing the point / misleading. I don't think editors are mistaking what is being proposed, that's a little dismissive, isn't it? These two proposal options (B and C) absolutely are related to the failure status - whether to say, or imply, "starship failed" versus "a prototype (not starship) failed". I don't think I'm misinterpreting anything. Leijurv (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Your missing one thing:

  A prototype of starship is a version of starship.

  So it's saying starship failed, but it was a prototype vehicle, and not an operational vehicle. Redacted II (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Does anyone have an objection to the (in my view quite obvious) conclusion that there is no consensus for any change? This would settle this RfC and make any discussion about the modality and fairness of this "Final sidebar proposal vote" obsolete anyway. Or do I miss something? Zae8 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as I just proposed a compromise option.

Also, discussions generally last 1 week before concluding, so it would be good to wait 6 days (yes I know Success or Failure 20-Apr-2023 started, well, 20 April 2023, but this section of the discussion started yesterday) Redacted II (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I Second that objection. We are still discussing the merits of the proposals (that for the record are based on proposals from many editors). WP:NODEADLINE {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the replies, it seems like we are approaching a consensus. What do you think, @Gtoffoletto? It seems like most editors are agreeing to oppose both for now Cocobb8 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I recently had a new idea for a compromise. If other's are interested, I'll start a new topic.

But the current consensus is "no change, for now". As long as it is VERY clear to everyone that this discussion can (and will) be reopened in the future, I'm okay with that. Redacted II (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem like we have a consensus. What do you want to create a separate topic for, though, @Redacted II? Cocobb8 (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The new topic would be for creation of a compromise proposal. Not an attempt to propose anything (yet). Just a place for various users to give advice. The compromise would be updated to address any concerns mentioned there. Once it's stable, then it can be officially proposed. Redacted II (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay that sounds about right. Cocobb8 (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If you were to create yet another topic to discuss yet another "compromise proposal", it would be a massive waste of everyone's time. In the direction of you causing the waste and other people being burdened by the waste. As earlier, satisfying everyone is not the goal and shouldn't be the goal. I'm interested in consensus, not making strictly everyone happy. I see at least three RfCs / votes, all in agreement with each other, with dozens of editors in each one. Let's leave it at that, maybe at least until it launches another time. Leijurv (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as we can agree to revisit this when another vehicle launches, I'm fine with dropping this. Redacted II (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cocobb8 this was definitely more contentious than I had anticipated and it is a small change so I don't think this huge discussion is really worth it. I think here unfortunately the name of the original discussion "triggered" many editors who had spent time discussing the "Success or Failure" topic multiple times. Those sidebar changes were not meant to change the fact that the flight was a failure (as I wrote in my first post). As many editors pointed out I think we should wait and see what happens with future flights/versions. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 15:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It definitely is getting a huge discussion for something that small. We should definitely wait for the next flight and see. Cocobb8 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

If by revisit this you mean "revisit whether this first flight was a failure", then absolutely not. I meant "let's not argue about the infobox until another flight, at which point we should increment the appropriate counter for that second flight". Leijurv (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not mean "revisit the label of failure".

I meant: "We should revisit the label of "prototype" after a few months (I was thinking three)" Redacted II (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

As the consensus seems to be: "Keep as is until a non-prototype vehicle launches", would anyone mind if I added an (invisible) note, stating do not change until another vehicle launches? Redacted II (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That isn't the consensus that has been formed and wouldn't recommend acting on that. CtrlDPredator (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, well looks like you went and did it anyway... CtrlDPredator (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll self-revert.

But at least from my perspective, the consensus seems to be: 'Keep as is until another vehicle flies, at which point another discussion can be held". Redacted II (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)