Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nagualdesign (talk | contribs) at 19:22, 8 July 2018 (→Concerning the frequent edits: Enough!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

There is a draft for this page located at DRAFT: Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2017. The result of the discussion was draftify.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Automobiles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spaceflight Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Hidden infoboxes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Manual archiving

Can we just let the robot archive old threads according to default settings? It follows an algorithm that existed long before this article was created, and doesn’t favor any point of view. When individuals manually picks out threads to archive, it instigates an a completely avoidable, time-wasting debate. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Archiving old and stale topics where your POV was dismissed repeatedly by every other editor and policies, is normal and expected. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That’s exactly what I mean. You think threads are archived because of your opinion of their content, rather than evenhanded criteria like age and most recent activity. Why even be having this discussion? Let the bot do its thing and there’s nothing to discuss. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The thread you're referring to was way past the 30-day staleness limit, with its last comment posted on 16 March. The bot did not archive it because it is instructed to keep a minimum of 3 threads on the page. However, as this one was both very long and very old, I archived it manually, in order to tidy up the talk page. Feel free to start a new thread if you deem the subject worthy of revisiting. — JFG 01:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

New infobox image

I've created an illustration (right) that I'd like to place in the infobox, with the intention of making clear that the car isn't floating freely in space, as the animation by SpaceX may have led people to believe, but is actually still attached to the Falcon 9 upper stage and also includes the framework that holds two of the cameras in place. I'd also like to suggest that this article, regardless of which title we use, should be about the whole ensemble, which constitutes a single spacecraft, and not just the car.

My original intention was to make a simple line drawing with labels pointing out the various parts, but for technical and aesthetic reasons I settled on a full-colour illustration without labels. The main problem was that almost all of the labels would be pointing at the car, making the image 'top heavy'. In the end I decided that it'd be much simpler to just mention somewhere that those frames hold the cameras. No pointing is really necessary. Less is more and all that.

The background was also chosen for technical and aesthetic reasons. Using a white or pale blue background the body of the upper stage looked a bit lost, and using a black background made it hard to see the Merlin engine. I tried using a star field but it looked a little funky. Using an carefully placed image of the Earth gives much better contrast all round, and also fills what would otherwise be a large area of nothing (lower right) with something far more pleasing to the eye. I realize there's a risk that some people might think the spacecraft is still in Earth orbit, or that the car may have separated from the upper stage after leaving Earth orbit, but the article makes it quite clear that this isn't the case.

One final point; I think we can do without an image caption. Per Misplaced Pages:Principle of Some Astonishment it's plainly obvious that this is an illustration and what it depicts, so unless someone has a very compelling reason to have a caption let's not go there. The image is already quite tall and contains enough text.

Good, eh? nagualdesign 15:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, and no offense intended but how would a reader know the image is accurate if it's attributed to an anonymous Misplaced Pages editor? Isn't it a problem of WP:OR and WP:V? Specifically thinking about scale of car to the stage, and no other images like this to confirm. -- GreenC 16:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair question. For the answer, see WP:OI. In short, images are not subject to the same rules as prose, although they still have to be accurate. I'm not actually anonymous; for what it's worth my name's Joe Haythornthwaite and I'm a designer living in Lancashire (UK). The dimensions can be independently confirmed using reliable online sources, using the same techniques I used to create the image. In case you're concerned about the perspective effects, I began by creating a 3D model in order to get that right. There are sources online, including the SpaceX video linked to above, that show the whole ensemble but without the framework that holds the cameras. SpaceX obviously don't hold themselves to the same standards of accuracy that we do, and probably thought that the framework spoiled the aesthetics or something. Does that answer your question? nagualdesign 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This image shows the car, the framework and the fairing adapter. This image and this image show how that fits into the fairing, and the relative scale. The size of the Falcon Heavy upper stage is fairly well documented. nagualdesign 17:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's fair enough. WP:OI seems to be focused on photographic images not original diagrams that look like photographs. It says "It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts", ie. photoshopping. But this is different from "photo manipulation", because it's not a photograph and not manipulated. It's in a different category. It might be a good idea to clarify this is not a photographic image in the caption because it has photographic qualities that might lead to confusion over what it is. Not sure what to call it: CGI? Recreation? Simulation? Diagram? Rendering? -- GreenC 18:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an illustration, or diagram. I'm flattered that you think it has photographic qualities but the black outlines and simple colouring and shading make it pretty obvious that this is not a photograph. nagualdesign 18:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The previous image is one of the two iconic images that went through the press, the other one is below the infobox. I strongly oppose a self-made computer-generated image in the infobox if we have such a prominent actual photo to show. Put it below the infobox as extra image if you absolutely think this has to be included (but WP:OR is still an issue). --mfb (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to have the most common and iconic image for the greatest recognition in the Infobox. -- GreenC 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has worked on images for WP for many years I've had this issue raised before, I've sought feedback from the wider community, and can assure you that WP:OR is absolutely not an issue here. If you disagree, please raise this at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research, where they will confirm what I'm saying. As for whether this image should go in the infobox, I guess we'll have to achieve consensus here. You may consider the previous infobox image to be iconic, and it's certainly very pretty, but it doesn't actually show the subject matter very well. nagualdesign 18:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC) It's not computer-generated, by the way. I made it.

My opinion is that this new image is useful and accurate, and does not represent any conflict with sourcing. However, it must be used elsewhere lower in the article instead of replacing the real, original and iconic image previously shown in the infobox. Allways, the original picture will supersede an artist's concept. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC) (formerly BatteryIncluded).

I can't tell if you're asserting facts as opinion and your opinion as fact. It's a fact that this illustration does not represent any conflict with sourcing. Is there some policy-based reason that you say, "Allways, the original picture will supersede an artist's concept"? Please note that this is not an artist's impression (like this or this), it's an accurate illustration. nagualdesign 18:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not playing with semantics, just stating the obvious: whether it is an "artist's impression" or an "illustration", it will NEVER replace the value and accuracy of the original actual photographic image. That is at least three editors that called you on this. You have extremely valuable input here and elsewhere in WP, but I see a strong consensus building against you in this issue. My opinion and assessment is that that your constructed image must be moved elsewhere lower in the article and we replace the actual photograph of the Roadster in the Infobox. Peace, Rowan Forest (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Text

I feel the text should be removed. Text describing the picture is in the article. Putting text in the image remove control over font and does not allow automatic translation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the text shows official designations, I don't think that there is any translation. It would be the same in any language. nagualdesign 18:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the picture should not include any text labels. A caption can better explain what is represented, and readers can follow links from there for detail. Additionally, the COSPAR ID is redundant with information already present in the infobox (and clickable). — JFG 01:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you change the text to reflect that the car remains and will remain attached to the booster. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Background

The background gives the impression it is in orbit around Earth. Could we see a version with a star background, perhaps the Sun in the distance, or maybe somehow Earth and the Sun in the distance so it looks like it is moving away from Earth? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

As stated above, I tried that and it didn't look very good. For that matter, the other photographs also show the Earth in the background, so I don't think it's really a problem. nagualdesign 18:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Pertinence and placement

First off, thanks nagualdesign for this suggestion, and your artistic work. I must admit I have mixed feelings about adding this illustration. The overall view of the car on top of the full second stage informs our readers with a useful perspective that hasn't been readily available to the public so far. On the other hand, there are plenty of photographs that show the car rigged on the stage prior to fairing encapsulation, so we could use one of those instead. Finally, the infobox picture is the "hero image" of any article, and as other commenters pointed out, this space should be reserved for the most iconic view of this artifact, which is undoubtedly Starman driving around in space. All things considered, I would suggest placing the illustration in the "Roadster payload" section. — JFG 01:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to address some of the points raised above, and for the sake of clarity I'll just leave a single post. First of all, I'm more than willing to go with whatever the consensus turns out to be, so there's no use pointing out what the consensus is so far. Other editors may disagree with those who have commented above and the outcome remains to be seen. Everyone's opinions are important of course, but policy-based reasoning holds more weight, and it aids discussion to make the distinction clear. If it's true that a photograph supersedes an illustration (ie, there is some sort of precedent) then that's something that I'm not aware of.

Regarding the distinction between artist's impressions and illustrations, I would argue that an artists impression is the least encyclopedic type of image but a high-quality illustration can have greater EV than a photo. In this case, the previous infobox image not only fails to show the entire spacecraft (the subject of the infobox) but doesn't even show the entire car. For that reason I question "the value and accuracy of the original actual photographic image" as an illustrative aid to understanding. I actually find it misleading.

My rationale for the labels is that the infobox is (erroneously, in my opinion) titled, "Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster" but the illustration shows not just the Roadster but the entire spacecraft. While that may look a bit 'belt and braces' it's intended to make the distinction clear: This is not an illustration of Musk's Roadster, it's an illustration of "TESLA ROADSTER/FALCON 9H". There are tons of images on WP that have a textual title baked into the image, so it's not unusual. Re. "A caption can better explain what is represented", I fail to see how but maybe that's just me. Obviously if everyone and his dog disagrees with this I'll be happy to amend the image accordingly.

Re. "there are plenty of photographs that show the car rigged on the stage prior to fairing encapsulation, so we could use one of those instead", the problem with that is it doesn't really illustrate the fact that the car wasn't deployed like a satellite, as most of the media available seems to suggest. In short, most people seem to imagine that the car is floating freely in space (heading to Mars, even!) and don't even question how the photos and videos were taken. "he most iconic view of this artifact, which is undoubtedly Starman driving around in space" pretty much sums up the problem I have with the previous image. "Starman" is not "driving around in space"!

As for the idea of a "hero image" I'd like to make it abundantly clear that it's never been my intention to vie for the top spot for any reason other than EV considerations. In fact, I insisted that the infobox image used in the Planet Nine article (an artist's impression created by myself and Tom Ruen) should not be used in the infobox, as I consider it highly-unencyclopedic to give our readers the impression that Planet Nine actually exists, never mind the fact that we have an image of it (and that image is of a much more photographic nature than the illustration under discussion). Unfortunately I was outvoted.

Look, the idea that the photos provided by SpaceX are 'iconic' is really by the by, and has very little to do with EV. In fact, it's previously been suggested that filling the article with pretty pictures is probably not the best idea and that we should probably just pick one of them. As Dennis Bratland would probably say, Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for SpaceX's PR wing. The idea is to convey information. If people just want pretty pictures they can use Google Images.

Sorry for the wall of text! Regards, nagualdesign 03:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Take the Layperson Challenge! I realize that I should probably STFU after my wall of text, but I'd like to urge other editors to consider this: Ask one or more of your friends and family what they believe SpaceX launched into space. See if they think that the car is floating freely or if they know the true nature of the spacecraft. I expect that most of them will get that bit wrong. Then show them the article, with the infobox as it currently stands and see what effect it has on their understanding. Remember, we editors are vastly outnumbered by our readers, and the aim of Misplaced Pages is to inform. Fair enough? nagualdesign 03:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The new picture is likely better to show first so the layperson knows the car is attached to the second stage. I added the former info box picture to the article since it is iconic to me. --Frmorrison (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: I appreciate the note of support. Be sure to add your two cents to the RfC below.

Has anyone taken the Layperson Challenge yet..? nagualdesign 10:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Citing a bit from the Manual of Style:

• The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there.
• be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see

This clearly supports the actual images, not your illustration. --mfb (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

In what way? The illustration is of the subject matter, which is the main thrust of what that's saying. It's not like we're showing an image of a zebra or something. In a case like this, where SpaceX has released high-quality photos for free, it's hardly surprising that the mainstream media have used those photos. Misplaced Pages is what I'd call a high-quality reference work, and every other spacecraft article shows this type of image (ie, an image of the spacecraft in full.) nagualdesign 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I happen to agree with you that as an encyclopedia, we should contribute to a full understanding by readers of what exactly is in orbit, and your illustration does that job very well. On the other hand, the illusion of "Starman driving around in space" is precisely why this artifact captured so much attention, and the reason it has sparked its own encyclopedic article, rather than only getting a paragraph in Falcon Heavy test flight. As such, this should remain the "hero image". Think of the WP:10 year test or indulge in a 50-year perspective: what will people remember, what will be taught in history of spaceflight? Surely more laypeople will fantasize about Starman "driving" his Roadster than marvel about the parallel landing of Falcon Heavy boosters. Today the general public remembers a much-publicized crisp footprint on the Moon (which was actually Aldrin's), not the blurry video picture of Armstrong fumbling down the ladder, and even less the technicalities of the Saturn V test flight or Apollo/LEM lunar orbit maneuvers. — JFG 08:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: About Planet Nine, perhaps we could check if consensus has changed. — JFG 08:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Evon, Dan (16 August 2016). "Lunar Footprint Mystery". Snopes. Retrieved 29 June 2018.

With respect, that sounds like you're pandering a little. Misplaced Pages is meant to inform it's readers, not satiate their basest desires like most of the modern media circus. In 10 (or 50) years, if people 'remember' Musk's Roadster floating freely in space then we will have clearly failed. The example you chose is moot, since the infobox image for Apollo 11 is actually a rather less well known image of Buzz Aldrin saluting the American flag, and the infobox images for Moon landing does include Neil Armstrong "fumbling" down the ladder and not Aldrin's "much-publicized crisp" footprint. I'm not sure what you were trying to say with that link, which appears to be about debunking conspiracy theories.

Yes, consensus does change, but RfCs are extremely tedious. See Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 38#RfC about the photos of Queen Elizabeth II for a prime example of having to push a boulder uphill to make what should have been a straightforward decision with well-informed editors. The old image was, frankly, complete garbage, but it still took a Herculean effort to convince everyone as they assumed that it was somehow "original" or "official". nagualdesign 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the infobox image

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology Media, the arts, and architecture Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the infobox contain the this illustration created by nagualdesign or one of the official SpaceX pictures such as this one?

Related discussions above.

-- GreenC 05:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Official picture. The purpose of an infobox image is to identify the article topic. The article is about the car. There were previous attempts to rename the article around the spacecraft but they never achieved consensus. The reason is most sources are focused on the car, Misplaced Pages correctly reflects/follows the majority of sources. The image runs against the grain, nagualdesign says he wants the image to change popular understanding to include car + spacecraft. Misplaced Pages follows the sources it doesn't try to get ahead of them by changing perceptions of what is important. I'd also rather use an available photograph vs an illustration. The illustration can be used in the article body. -- GreenC 05:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Photograph . This is aligned with the Manual of Style, which advises to use the least surprising pictures, pictures used elsewhere as well. The official pictures have been used everywhere, we should do the same (that's the guideline, not just my personal opinion). The illustration can be shown below the infobox. --mfb (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Photograph preferred, however I would advocate using a picture of the car mounted on the PAF prior to fairing encapsulation, namely this one. Nagualdesign's illustration can remain in the article body to clarify what exactly is floating in space. — JFG 07:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Clarification: I'm fine with keeping a view of "Starmsn driving around in space" as the top image, but I would complement it by the suggested photograph of the PAF-mounted car. — JFG 08:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Illustration, because none of the images from SpaceX actually show the spacecraft in full. (And I don't agree with the characterization of the photo(s) as being somehow "official".) For that actual WP policies please see Dennis Bratland's comment below. nagualdesign 09:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC) 
• Comment, the order of least confusion is probably (1) earth-based image photograph of car in car park, (2) space-based photograph of same car in low-Earth orbit, (3) diagramatic side/front/top renders or line-art plans of combined object in free space. (4) earth-based photograph of same combined object object prior to fairing encapsulation. This order starts with something that is mostly immediately familiar and gradually introduces more detail to the reader where each new image/diagram directly supports the text being read. —Sladen (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Original photograph - Because it is real, not synthetic. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Photograph A real image is less subjective. No matter how good or accurate the illustration, it's still the creation of the illustrator. Fcrary (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Illustration Tesla can put all the "official" photos they want at tesla.com. This article belongs to Misplaced Pages, not Tesla. It is definitely a widespread misconception that it's just a car in space, rather than this much larger object. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says to avoid ambiguous images, such as a closeup photo that crops out most of the object. It says "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." An authentic, official photo that fails to show what this thing really looks like is inferior for that reason. WP:FIDUCIAL also suggests that we should include an image that gives a proper sense of scale, and that means the rocket needs to be in the picture. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE, this is a classic case of when "it is impossible to avoid using a lead image with perceived shock value" -- many readers will be shocked to learn what this thing really is, and that's good in this instance. MOS:LEADIMAGE also contradicts the claim that the purpose of the lead image is merely to identify the subject -- the guideline describes the fact that it is common for editors to have chosen a lead image for that reason, but what the guideline prescribes is several other goals, including "natural and appropriate representations", as opposed to a narrow crop, leaving out critical facts. This photo solves none of the problems, since it crops out most of the mass of the object, and anyway, it's licensed no-$; we can't use it. The MOS has no prejudice favoring photos over drawings or renderings, and photographs are not inherently truer than drawings is; WP:TRUTH not as simple as that. Any technical or quality issues with the illustration can be overcome in future versions; they are not reasons to favor a less informative, and in fact misleading, photo. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the pertinent policy links, Dennis. I knew I'd read that stuff before but couldn't remember where, and I haven't got the energy to deal with flimsy rationales like the illustration being "synthetic" or supposedly being "subjective". Hopefully, whoever closes this RfC will place greater weight on such policy-based reasoning than on people's opinions, however heart-felt they may be, rather than just totting up !votes. nagualdesign 03:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Re:it's licensed no-$; we can't use it. Just a note that SpaceX has released all their pictures to the public domain, so we can use them. — JFG 04:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I would expect the license they chose to attach to the actual image would have precedence, rather than any generalizations at their About page. Generally Wikimedia takes a cautious and conservative approach to copyright, and presumes that if they wanted a broader license than CC BY-NC then they would have said so. I'd suggest you resolve that first, then upload it to Commons, and then you would have a viable alternative to discuss. At this moment, it's a red herring. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Illustration, because none of the images pubically released from SpaceX that are included on this page show the spacecraft in full. Since the Roadster is permantently attached to the second stage, it makes one object. Also, I would support a request to rename this article to something that somehow mentions that this is car/rocket combination is an object in space. --Frmorrison (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Right now, today, the article topic is Elon Musk's Roadster. The infobox image accurately reflects the article-topic - not what we aspire it to be in the future eg. a complete spacecraft, an advertising campaign, etc.. Keep the infobox image on-topic and change only after the article topic has been changed, not before. Not everyone agrees the article topic should be changed at all. -- GreenC 04:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

All you’re doing is re-stating your opinion, then re-stating theirs, then implying that the other editor’s opinion is less valid for no reason. They and others !voted that the topic should be broader than just the car. You had already !voted that it should only be the car. By replying again, adding no information other than those two facts, you’re bludgeoning the process. The reason I’m saying all this is in the hopes that you don’t re-post the same things on all the subsequent !votes favoring the broader topic of car+rocket. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

False. The overwhelming consensus was to make this article about the car, not about an imaginary and "masterful commercial". Your POV on a commercial was rejected by the commubity, multiple times, and archived. The present issue is whether the composite diagram could replace an actual photograph. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Again with the bludgeoning. Some editors here, now are !voting that they think this article should be about the entire object in orbit, not merely the car piece of it. Whether or not editors in the past did or didn't have consensus that it should only be about the car, editors now are free to reach a new consensus that the topic should cover the whole thing. Those who which to keep it about only the car have already !voted. It is misleading to keep implying that it's invalid to take that position now just because of past consensus. All you're doing is repeating your !vote, pretending your !vote has greater weight than it does, and treating those who disagree as if they don't count because they're "wrong". Don't bludgeon the process means you already said that and you don't need to keep saying it. Also, the "imaginary" insult you threw in there implies that I made an unsourced claim, which is not true. Please see aspersions and reconsider this kind of behavior. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

While the article is nominally about the Roadster it covers the whole shebang, including the launch, the landing of the two boosters, etc., and the infobox is clearly about the whole spacecraft. Right now, today! nagualdesign 17:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the mass and the "spacecraft type" entry, the infobox wouldn't look any different if the car would have separated from the second stage. --mfb (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Photograph MOS on infoboxes is pretty clear on this. If photos are available, they are always preferable over a painting, a drawing, or any other manufactured representations. Policy found here reads: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image‍—‌such as of a person or place, a book or album cover‍—‌to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page...The lead image is perhaps the first thing to catch the reader's eye, so avoid lead images that readers would not expect to see there. Unlike other content beyond the lead, the lead image should be chosen with these considerations in mind...Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Based on this, using the photo seems like a no-brainer to me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
• Nagualdesign's image or something like it. I'm glad I read all the responses above before answering. The argument isn't about the image, it's about the deceptive nature of the article, as revealed by JFG who wrote 'The article is about the Roadster, and whether we like it or not, it is perceived as "a dude driving around in space"'. When an article is about a subject whose properties are widely misperceived, this should be made clear in the lead. The article on Jesus says in its first paragraph "Most Christians believe him to be the incarnation of God the Son". But this article reveals the misperception only in the final sentence of the third section, with "The Roadster is attached to a Merlin 1D Vacuum second stage with extended nozzle by a payload attachment fitting." Misplaced Pages should make the truth clear both in the wording of the lead and in its choice of image, rather than playing along with Musks's amusing marketing ploy. Maproom (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Photograph, but not the payload photo - as per prior comments, a photo would work better for visually understanding the car and for following the MoS. However, the payload photo would not be an appropriate photo for the infobox, since it doesn't show the car as a whole. A regular photo of the car taken on the ground would be the best fit, official or not. ⠀𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗦_{𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗦}⠀𝗧𝗔𝗟𝗞⠀ 22:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The article is about the car. The second stage, while larger than the car, is waste that didn't get discarded (as would have been done for regular missions). While we do not have a picture of Zuma, we wouldn't show it with second stage either. I think the illustration is useful, but somewhere below the infobox. "it's" was correct--mfb (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

That's mostly an artifact of the problem of editors being unable to agree on a better title for this article. The only reason this article exists is because of the use of it in the Falcon Heavy test, and "it" being left in solar orbit -- the "it", the subject of this article -- is not merely the car. The article exists because of the car in its context, its placement in space. The guidelines at MOS:IMAGE I pointed out above favor scale, setting, context. The subject's relationships with other things. This piece of hardware so large it dwarfs the car is a vital part of that context. The Zuma is not analogous at all -- it was destroyed. This object, car and rocket, are still there, and in the configuration in the illustration, looking very little like the romanticized official photo, letting people imagine it's like the car in space in the movie Heavy Metal. It looks nothing like that. Much of the grousing about this car being a hazard or space junk is based on the misconception that the car was the junk -- when in fact the car hardly adds anything to the far larger piece of "junk" that was going out there anyway. The fact that seeing an accurate illustration upends so many attitudes about is the greatest resaon to favor the more accurate and complete illustration. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Whether this orbiting artifact is merely junk or an inspiring message is a matter of personal opinion. Misplaced Pages does not deal in opinions or in WP:TRUTH, it deals with a balanced representation of mainstream views about the subject. See also WP:RGW. — JFG 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

And here it is. I expected one of you would try to drag this down to this level. It's obvious you're misrepresenting what I posted, and making a straw man argument. Everyone else is capable of reading what I actually said, so I won't respond. If you wish to tell yourself that my arguments are "opinion" and yours are "balanced", knock yourself out. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that your arguments are opinion; I said that the interpretation of this artifact by each person is a matter of personal opinion: yours, mine, Musk's, journalists', space enthusiasts', Wikipedians' and lay people's. NPOV means that Misplaced Pages should provide an overview of facts and various interpretations in proportion to their weight, seriousness and prominence in sources. — JFG 18:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ages ago, Jimmy Wales rejected the notion that NPOV on Misplaced Pages means occupying some middle ground between liberal and conservative United States world views -- no matter how deluded the Fox News-fed portion of Americans became, we had to find a false equivalence with the "other side". Instead, Misplaced Pages finds a neutral position in a much broader scope, not just the benighted US, and beliefs that are scientifically false, like climate change denial, are not taken seriously. The fact that a lot of media are guilty in misleading the public doesn't mean NPOV requires finding some middle ground between a flat and a round Earth. That's false equivalence. The belief that the car is all by itself out there is simply wrong, and doesn't need to be given equal weight, or any weight, in relation with the verifiable facts. Your suggestion that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS requires us to go along with the fiction is false. RGW merely restates the WP:NOR policy. We couldn't say the rocket is attached unless it were verifiable in reliable secondary sources. But it very much is, so RGW has no bearing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed to have received no response to my Layperson Challenge (posted above). As a point of discussion I think it's important for editors to either deny or confirm the idea that the current infobox image only adds to the widely held misconception that Musk's Roadster is floating freely through space, as the "official" SpaceX animation would have them believe, and that the proposed infobox image would serve to dispel that misconception. If nobody actually disagrees with this idea then the fact that people are arguing that we should disregard it because the current photo is "official" or "iconic" (neither reason having any basis in WP policy) even though it's misleading, in my opinion, undermines the purpose of Misplaced Pages. Are we seriously suggesting that because people expect to see the roadster on its own then it would somehow be remiss of us to disabuse our readers? nagualdesign 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the Roadster, and whether we like it or not, it is perceived as "a dude driving around in space", so that an actual picture of the flying Roadster should remain the top image about the article subject. Your illustration is very helpful to dispel the myth that the car is orbiting by itself, so that a layperson who comes to Misplaced Pages to learn more will actually be educated, and can educate their friends in turn. — JFG 18:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Re. whether we like it or not, it is perceived as "a dude driving around in space", so that an actual picture of the flying Roadster should remain the top image, so you agree that our readers are probably confused, but you believe that that's a good thing? Frankly, I'm stunned. We're not here to affirm misconceptions, folklore and old wives tales! Who else here agrees with JFG's line of reasoning? nagualdesign 19:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't invent strawmen please. The readers simply care about the car and cameras which sent videos much more than they care about the trash that didn't separate from it. --mfb (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a straw man, I'm simply trying to engage in discussion. In my opinion, RfCs are pretty pointless if editors simply tack on their !vote without being willing to debate their reasoning or possibly alter their position. Your claim about what readers supposedly care about, as well as your characterizing the upper stage of a Falcon Heavy as "trash", suggests that you're trying to rubbish the point I'm making, but you're actually confirming my suspicion that you think it's okay for Misplaced Pages to be a bit 'tabloid'. I disagree is all. nagualdesign 19:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nagualdesign: I appreciate the debate; your initiative allowed us all to illuminate the essence of this article. Irrespective of our personal opinions, Misplaced Pages must reflect first and foremost the mainstream view of any article subject. An encyclopedia follows and does not lead. We may find 10 years from now that the Roadster is only remembered as a piece of junk used for marketing purposes, or we may find that it got renewed public attention next time it comes in close proximity to the Earth and gets imaged again. We may also find that dark matter does not exist, and that Erik Verlinde's theory of entropic gravity was right all along, but today Lambda-CDM is the mainstream view, just as in 1880 the ether theory was mainstream. — JFG 20:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: you agree that our readers are probably confused, but you believe that that's a good thing? I'm not saying it's good or bad; I'm just saying it is what it is. — JFG 20:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. nagualdesign 21:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Background layer under illustration

Initially raised on commons:File_talk:Tesla_Roadster_Falcon_9H.png a week ago. Have taken nagualdesign's efforts and drawn an SVG vector mask to allow for a flat background in-lieu of not having the original vector version. This perhaps more closely represents the status-quo of the combined object. A black background maybe preferable, but at the moment that gave too many aliasing artifacts—working from the original drawing would give even better results… —Sladen (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Sladen, I wasn't aware of the note you left at Commons and evidently the ping didn't work. For future reference, if anyone wishes to contact me for any reason then use my talk page at en.Wiki as I don't really use Commons, apart from uploading there. I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the mask you created, but as you mentioned it's probably better if I do any further edits as I have the original, hi-res Photoshop file to work from.

I think the grey background looks a bit rubbish compared to the original, and I disagree with the rationale for not having the Earth in the background. There's nothing wrong with striking an aesthetic balance — if there was I'd be out of business! As I said in my original post here a couple of weeks ago, I'd already tried various plain backgrounds and a couple of star fields (and also several different views of the Earth), and none of them looked as good as the version I settled on. The two main issues with a star field are that the black outlines become lost, leaving the illustration looking 'skinnyfied', and, as with any plain background, there's a lot of empty space. A plain background just seems pointless.

It's a bit annoying that aesthetic considerations are being ignored and the Earth background is being questioned, while at the same time my concerns about the photographs are being largely poo-pooed. In all honesty, one of the reasons I upload to the Commons is shameless self-promotion, and if other editors are going to take it upon themselves to deconstruct my work without a damn good reason I'm going to stop spending my time and effort providing such images. Basically, I don't want potential clients to find an image that I made that's then been watered down by committee and think that I was the one who made it like that. Call it professional pride or simply vanity, I'm sure you understand what I mean. nagualdesign 22:42, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The illustration looks more useful without the Earth background. Sladen is correct that the Roadster/second stage combo is currently floating in the blackness of space. @Nagualdesign: Could you show us your attempts at drawing this on a starfield background? And perhaps a transparent background would be the cleanest encyclopedic way to show how the Roadster is attached to the second stage. Let's compare them all. — JFG 23:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've uploaded two more versions: The first one on a black background, no text - the wheels of the Roadster are barely visible, the spacesuit visor bleeds into the background, the black outlines are no longer visible, the framework looks thinner, the wiring for the cameras has disappeared and the body of the rocket dominates the image due to its contrast. The second one on a transparent background, no text - this is equivalent to using a white background or 'infobox blue' (#F8F9FA). Although it's fairly inoffensive it does not suggest that the spacecraft is even in space. The whole idea behind having the Earth in the background was so that people would instantly understand that this thing is a spacecraft, floating in space. I didn't upload one with a star field as it's a complete waste of time and effort. I've reverted to the original image because I want people to see it, and that's the image being discussed in the RfC above. Please do not revert or overwrite it until the RfC is complete. nagualdesign 00:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I would pick the version on transparent background. Context for Earth is provided by the current infobox image, and I have supported inserting your illustration later in the article body, where the focus can be on demonstrating the attached payload – Earth background is distracting for this purpose. — JFG 00:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic. Much more directly relevant for the reader—will follow JFG's guidance about the transparent version vs black. Nagual, think you're also a perfectionist so three more details spotted since: (1) The miniature hotwheels car is missing from the car dash (referred to in the article text, so probably wants to be illustrated); (2) in-between the wheel rims is mostly transparent (seen in the videos when floating across the disc of Earth ); (3) The foil texture is a derivative of an image Elon put up on Instagram (could this be replaced with something self-drawn/generic?). —Sladen (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If you insist, you can make any modifications you wish. Remember to upload any and all derivatives separately and include correct attribution, as well as clearly marking what sort of alterations have been made. The foil texture is no more of a derivative than the rest of the car, fairing adapter and framework. It's entirely self-drawn. nagualdesign 22:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you nagual. Please can the Photoshop file and 3D source material be uploaded so that we're not duplicating efforts. It would be good if "It's entirely self-drawn." could be clarified. Most of the upper section appears to be a 1:1 tracing, although with fixed width 10 pixel lines for the masts instead of foreshortening—this generally falls under WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT where we have "Simply re-tracing a copyrighted image or diagram does not necessarily create a new copyright". As these appear to have been traced/redrawn, at this point the easiest would be to contact SpaceX and beg for a relicenced clean copy of the image, which would cover the tracing and direct use of the foil texture. For the wheel rims, that texture has come from somewhere else (wheel rims are on backwards and have different lighting—perhaps either (based on the lighting), and based on the position on the air valve?). The foil texture includes small dots, and cables on the left hand side which have not disappeared with smoothing and remain directly visible from the original. In light of please could a some third parties provide suggestions with how to proceed? The image can be modified if people still deem it worth it (verses putting the same energy into a new diagram). —Sladen (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Background layer is second quarter from left of an image circulated by Reid Wiseman, republished by NASA in 2014 with the explicitly requested image credit "Image Credit: NASA/Reid Wiseman (@astro_reid)". —Sladen (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

NASA giving credit on that page as "Image Credit: NASA/Reid Wiseman (@astro_reid)" is not an explicit request for credit, nor does it change the fact that an image taken by an astronaut using NASA equipment while on a NASA mission is in the public domain. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio free diagram

Clean vector diagram drawn from memory without reference to any photographs. It's SVG, editable by everyone and welcome to be refined, or ignored as is felt useful. Also available in black. Hope it helps, —Sladen (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Horizontal form, perhaps more suited to integration near bottom of #Trajectory, or at top of #Orbit tracking. May also help to break presumations about which way is "up" in space. —Sladen (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's quite accurate, as the roadster was mounted at a steep upwards angle. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Excellent feedback Ahecht. Have uploaded a version with an even steeper angle! Is that better? —Sladen (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen: Looks good. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. And it's not even remotely accurate either. nagualdesign 17:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. Nagualdesign's illustration in 3D perspective is easier to understand. I hope we can reach an agreement soon, especially if we use the "naked" version with no background. — JFG 15:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, would love a libre 3D perspective version, ie. a image that didn't suffer from being a 3–4 way copyvio. Such an image (from scratch) takes genuine time to create. A 2D placeholder was (relatively) quick to produce. If everyone believes that creating a libre 3D perspective image from scratch is worth it, hopefully it will happen! —Sladen (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Re. "Such an image (from scratch) takes genuine time to create." Do you think I just coughed that illustration out of my arse?! Yes, it took me a great deal of time, effort, skill and care to create — something which seems to have escaped you. nagualdesign 17:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tesla Roadster Falcon 9H.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen: I think you're being overzealous with this copyvio report. Not nice: a request to remove the background would probably be enough to alleviate copyright concerns. It's nitpicking to try and trace the origin of minor details in the texture and wheel rims. — JFG 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

JFG, yes, some editors have put considerable effort into getting the first copyvio removed. Following that, efforts were made to at least credit one of the other copyright holders (reverted by the uploader). But as we've heard "The foil texture is no more of a derivative than the rest of the car, fairing adapter and framework.", which (unfortunately) has turned out to be the case: most of the diagram is either directly using third-party images, or tracing from them. We're here to build a libre encyclopedia, libre content, libre images. Other suggestions, for how we deal with similar copyvios more effectively are welcomed. It's not pleasant, and it's not nit-picking, and here's to hoping that the uploader might be willing to help draw a genuine libre replacement from scratch (or at least properly credited images Misplaced Pages does have permission to use and derive work from). —Sladen (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is any chance of debate or controversy it shouldn't be speedied. Use the normal deletion process, give people an opportunity to comment. -- GreenC 15:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

When it was just the background, and the background is removal (the image is fixable) then it makes. But here the copyvio is larger than that, majority of the image, and all of the parts that could be deemed as creative—there are few options available other than genuinely starting from scratch to make a libre image… —Sladen (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen: How is the background a copyvio? It very clearly falls under {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. A requested credit ("NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material") is a non-copyright restriction that doesn't trump the fact that the image is in the public domain under US copyright law. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, Sladen, but it's a waste of time to discuss deleting an image here, it won't result in anything. Normally if you want to discuss deleting an image you would open an image for deletion discussion at Commons. -- GreenC 16:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Libre placeholders were put in place, and a process was initiated over at Commons when the scale of the copyvio became clearer. —Sladen (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Apparently it was serious enough to justify a speedy. -- GreenC 02:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't, and I'm going to prove it... nagualdesign 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sladen: I don't know how or why you ended up with such a bee in your bonnet. AFAIK I've never had any bad dealings with you aside from courteous, professional disagreement over content. I'm bewildered by the amount of effort you seem to have put into your libellous comments here and on Commons over something that you clearly know nothing about. To quote Withnail (from the film Withnail and I, assuming that you'll allow me to quote directly from a copyrighted movie without filing a complaint), "You can stuff it up your arse for nothing and fuck off while you're doing it." I've left a full explanation on the image file page over on Commons for anyone who's interested. nagualdesign 17:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

While I prefer the actual photograph in the Infobox, I think that Nagual's 3D image was very beneficial to Misplaced Pages, and the fact that he is a professional and took care of the details, it should be applauded, not censored. If his image looks like the real thing is because of his dedication, not piracy. (Personal attack removed) Sincerely, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rowan Forest: Over at Commons, those familiar with handling such cases pointed the uploader to COM:DW and encouraged the sending in of permissions via COM:OTRS for all of the photographs included in the collage. Hopefully the uploader will return to Misplaced Pages, to contribute content compatible with Misplaced Pages/Common's requirements. —Sladen (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You can't produce a diagram of his quality so you falsely accused him of piracy. Standup guy, as usual. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Rowan Forest. Would suspect that all editors aspire to producing such beautiful photomontages—where they are to be considered for inclusion in Misplaced Pages the component images/photographs need to be compatible with the five WP:PILLARS, especially WP:5P3. There are occasional (limited) exceptions for including non-free content—and the Falcon Heavy Test Flight article does this to show the Roadster—but those instances need to be openly declared, correctly attributed, and a rationale agreed in advance (per WP:NFCCP) for each use. —Sladen (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You know what, I wanted to leave Misplaced Pages and just walk away because I'm sick and tired of having to deal with an endless barrage of irritating twats (no names mentioned) but as you insist on spitting on my proverbial grave, Sladen, I feel obliged to pop back in in order to tune you in a little. It's time to expose your spiteful, libellous, pathetic little game for what it is, for all to see, and make you wish you'd just kept your mouth shut. Your transparent, thinly-veiled jibes dressed as flattery don't wash with me.

For everyone reading this, please do NOT close the RfC just yet. Although the image has been deleted on Commons, as my last task on Misplaced Pages I'm going to get that image reinstated and we're going to have a proper discussion about the scope of this article, and settle all this bullshit once and for all. Unfortunately, Sladen's done a great job of scuppering that process and you're going to have to be patient while I sort this shit out. I'd very much appreciate it if other editors lend their support at this point, even if they don't support the illustration being used in the infobox. (Yet!) For now, please add my talk pages, here and on the Commons, to your Watchlists and keep a close eye on proceedings. It's ass kicking time. nagualdesign 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't want to get too deep into this bikeshedding debate, but I only want to re-state my previous position that the small group of 4-5 editors who act as de facto owners of Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster should be ashamed of themselves. I think it would be a good thing to ban all of them from touching this article for six months, and allow the principle of "anyone can edit" to apply to this article, without hindrance. Look at the kind of carnage that has already occurred. For shame! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the frequent edits

The following discussion 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.

This concerns everyone, I'll discuss one specific example but it was not the only one. Please check what you edit, especially when reverting things. It is easy to get the grammar wrong if parts of sentences are changed. Otherwise we get edits like this one where a full stop was added in the middle of a sentence. I had removed the full stop before, my edit plus a previous one were reverted. I removed the full stop again, and then we got this strange edit, adding it again with an edit comment that has nothing to do with this wrong full stop. The section was rewritten in the meantime, so now that sentence is gone. And the edit comments here and on your talk page were unwarranted, Dennis Bratland. --mfb (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You didn't have to do anything. Misplaced Pages is not compulsory. If you feel put upon by tasks like adding or removing periods, commas, whitespace or whatever, then don't. Nobody is required to make any punctuation or grammar corrections, or to make edits of any kind. Your choice to volunteer to contribute belongs to you alone.

If one chooses to spend one's time editing, it is preferred to use standard English as outlined in the Manual of style, but that is only a guideline. It is trumped by Editing policy, which prohibits reverting substantive changes over minor issues like a period. The policy prescribes that you fix the problem while preserving content. Minor errors are an expected part of the editing process, and Misplaced Pages has explicit policies in place welcome improvements in content even if they are imperfect, and to prohibit the kind of status quo reverts that prevent the encyclopedia from growing at all. Perfection is not required.

If this were a Good article or Featured article nomination, it would be appropriate to vocally pick nits about grammar and punctuation errors, because that contributes to a discussion as to whether or not to promote the article. But that's not the case here. Pointing out small errors is not a helpful contribution, it's distracting noise. Shortcuts like WP:JUSTFIXIT exist to remind editors to spend ten seconds fixing it rather than five minutes writing a complaint about it.

If this article already was a GA or FA, it would make sense to revert sloppy changes that degraded an ostensibly polished and near-perfect article. That is a common practice. Here we have nothing of the kind; this is a relatively new article that has been undergoing significant editing for some time, and has been the subject of numerous editing discussions. There isn't even strong consensus as to what the title should be, or what the scope of the subject should be. It is not anywhere near complete, and nowhere near perfect. So. Just fix it, and if that annoys you, then don't fix it. Go do something else, as you wish. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"If this article already was a GA or FA, it would make sense to revert sloppy changes that degraded an ostensibly polished and near-perfect article." GA and FA are awards given by Misplaced Pages editors, not the public - in short, it's Misplaced Pages editors slapping themselves on the back and truly means nothing. Readers unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's inner workings don't care if an article is GA or FA, they don't even know what that round green plus symbol or the gold star symbol mean. If a comma or a period are missing in an article, if the grammar is off, and a non-Misplaced Pages editor reads the article, they're likely to notice those little "nits" and then see Misplaced Pages as sloppy and possibly (likely) unreliable. Misplaced Pages already has that reputation. Why add to it? All articles should be good articles, little round plus sign symbols notwithstanding. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understood anything I just said about FAs and GAs. Regardless of how you happen to feel about it, it's a fact that preserving the status quo on GAs and especially FAs is a common practice by many, many editors. The same behavior on works in progress is not accepted. It's faster to fix it than complain about it, and deleting content for minor, fixable issues is against policy. Even more serious problems like neutrality aren't inherently an excuse to delete content.

"All articles should be good articles" is a non sequitur. That's not how Misplaced Pages is written at all. We put up stubs, and articles with atrocious problems of every imaginable kind and let the world see them until someone comes along and makes it better. WP:BLPs are a special case, and the strictness of the rules for facts about living people only underscores that we don't have such strict rules about everything else.

In short, just fix it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"I don't think you understood anything I just said about FAs and GAs"Then you think wrong. I understood it just fine but I also think it's irrelevant when it comes to wanting to see improvements made in this article (which is further from being a good article than a number I've seen in a while). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Dennis is spot on here. This is how you deal with trifling issues like this, not posting yet another tirade against Dennis. You're arguing over a full stop, for fuck's sake. Get a grip! And for what it's worth, Dennis, I sincerely apologise for turning a blind eye while other editors have, on occasion, caused unnecessary drama to your detriment. When you first arrived at this article I lauded your arrival. During the first few weeks there was a lot of fancruft here and you were one of the few editors to stand up to that. To be fair, you have on occasion been extremely overzealous and, frankly, a pain in the arse, being either unwilling or unable to treat each editor as an individual and each sticking point on a case-by-case basis, so when I saw you targeted unnecessarily at times (and frequently so) I did nothing to help mediate because I thought you'd pretty much brought it upon yourself. I realize now that you were just extremely exasperated and isolated, and I'm going to do whatever I can to put a stop to any and all bullshit from all sides. I may not agree with you but I'll damn well make sure that you're treated even-handedly in the time I have left here. For starters, I'm going to close this rather pointless discussion, since everyone seems to have made their point and it's going nowhere. nagualdesign 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Automobile articles
• Low-importance Automobile articles
• C-Class spaceflight articles
• Low-importance spaceflight articles
• WikiProject Spaceflight articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment