Talk:Starship flight test 5

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Starship flight test 5 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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1: 10 days

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rocketry High‑importance

	Rocketry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rocketry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rocketry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RocketryWikipedia:WikiProject RocketryTemplate:WikiProject RocketryRocketry
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal 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 Wikipedia. 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.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas.

On 30 July 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 5 to Starship flight test 5. The result of the discussion was moved.

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps, showing flightpath of Super Heavy, be included in this article to improve its quality.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps, showing flightpath of Starship upper stage, be included in this article to improve its quality.

It is requested that a diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

IFT

@RickyCourtney IFT has continued to be used recently.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2024/06/starship-launch-fourth-time/ "Just over a year after the first integrated flight test"/"three Starship integrated flight tests"

https://nextspaceflight.com/starship/hardware/40 "Booster 11 and Ship 29 are the Super Heavy and Starship pair that launched the fourth integrated test flight"

https://spacelaunchnow.me/launch/starship-integrated-flight-test-5/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIKI7y3DTXk "Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjDFirLcQDM "integrated test flight of Starship"

Its been used up to Flight 6. Redacted II (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this proves that it’s an official, alternate name. Show where SpaceX has been using IFT-n in an official, alternate capacity. The finding of the move discussion three months ago was that they weren’t and to my knowledge, they still aren’t. Just because some writers and YouTubers haven’t noticed that SpaceX dropped the IFT name doesn’t mean we should be adding it as an official, alternate name. That’s not the purpose of that infobox parameter. — RickyCourtney (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you:

"official, previous or alternate names"

Or heavily implies that it doesn't need to be an official name to be listed. Only that it is a commonly used name. Redacted II (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is why edit summaries are not a substitute for a talk page. What the comma was intended to convey was: “An official name. Previously or alternately used.” RickyCourtney (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spaceflight Infobox template states:

"list of previous names if the spacecraft has been renamed. Include the dates applicable if possible, and separate each name with a linebreak. Omit if the spacecraft has only ever been known by one name. Do not include Harvard, COSPAR/NSSDC or SATCAT/NORAD/NASA designations as alternative names"

There is no mention of an official name requirement. And the second sentence implies that the launch merely has to be known by a name for it to be listed. Redacted II (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, this mission has not been renamed. It has always been called Starship test flight 5, which again, was established in the move discussion three months ago. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The flight has been called IFT-5 before by multiple, independant, sources. That is sufficient for listing it as an alternate name. Redacted II (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I’ve made my point.

Here on Wikipedia when a change is contested, editors must seek consensus, so I’ll step back and let others have their say.

Per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle please remove your contested edits until a consensus is reached. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've hidden the IFT text until consensus is reached. Redacted II (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like SpaceX has in the past officially referred to those launches with the phrase "Integrated Flight Test", but never actually used it in the abbreviated form "IFT-x", at least not officially. More recently, it seems like they have shortened to just simply "Flight X" or "Flight Test X". Nonetheless, the abbreviation "IFT" is still commonly used by enthusiasts etc, and so I think it may be reasonable to also add in "IFT-5" as an alternative name. Policy doesn't require a name to be officially used to be eligible for inclusion here, just that it is commonly used. It is also used by multiple independent sources. User3749 (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for Template:Infobox spaceflight state that the names_list is a: List of previous names if the spacecraft has been renamed. [...] Omit if the spacecraft has only ever been known by one name. In the past, SpaceX has referred to previous launches (specifically flight 1, and to a lesser extent flight 2) as an integrated flight test. However, this flight, and subsequent flights were never called integrated flight tests, and therefore were never renamed. There is no policy as far as I know that states that a name does not need to be "officially used to be eligible for inclusion here, just that it is commonly used." -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that states that a name needs to be officially used, either. Redacted II (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something can't be renamed if that name was never "officially used." -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]