Talk:Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster/Archive 4

Summary of reactions in lede section
recently amended the last paragraph of the lede section, which describes reactions to the event, to state:

I found this was too long, and edited the text into a shorter version:

Dennis reverted to his version, asking why the lead should be shortened, so let's discuss here. Opinions from other editors welcome. — JFG talk 03:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence by Dennis is extremely long, and gives in my opinion too much prominence to superlatives about Musk's marketing coup. Surely, he was praised, but we should not give equal weight to those comments as to the description of the payload itself, or its orbit. Hence my trimming from four lines to roughly two. Also, looking at the citations from the "Marketing" section, which we are supposed to summarize here, I see actual praise from advertising trade magazines such as Advertising Age, not so much from "automotive industry experts"; that's why I mentioned just "advertising analysts", instead of the long-winded "aerospace and automotive industry analysts, and major media".
 * 2) The "Other experts" part was rather vague, and gave too much prominence to the "readymade art" comparison. I rephrased it, but kept its length; I believe the prose flows better, and have reverted to my version of this sentence.


 * Shorter version seems better -- it's seems to me a bit undue emphasis for a minor thing for the longer version to be in the lede. More detail can go in the body, but not the lede.  N2e (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The shorter one gets the same point across in a lot less verbiage. It's bloated with too many details for the lead section. Do we really need to say "Aerospace and automotive industry analysts"? Or "major media"? (a weasel phrase that raises red flags about the whole sentence). I could go on, but that would bloat my response. -- Green  C  06:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter is definitely better here. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shorter - The article is not about Tesla marketing techniques. It can be mentioned briefly as we did in the beginning. Until an administrator addresses Dennis behavior and POV campaign, this is going to be a chronic issue. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Short and sweet. Wary of this becoming a WP:PILEON, but this is the WP:LEDE, not the article body—just needs to summarise and simplify what the reader may encounter later in the article, but not every single word.  —Sladen (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The notion that this article's lead is too large is obvious nonsense. That we can find room to mention the "name" of a mannequin (seriously?), or that the car was used for commuting, shows how far from overcrowded the intro is. More room could be made by leaving out mention of very trivial hot takes by single individuals, like the art thing and the space junk nothingburger. Just because it's not WP:FRINGE doesn't mean it is important enough to go in the lead. But the sources have been telling us what is important and that has been getting buried and minimized.I've been saying how lopsided the sources are, in quantity and quality, in the weight of the choice of a car as a PR stunt, vs any other reaction or commentary. It looks like I'm going to have to demonstrate that by tabulating them one by one, and we can see the numbers, as well as the names. The Wall Street Journal's straight news item on the launch was matter of fact, deadpan: ""The 230-foot rocket, which featured 27 engines with the combined thrust of some 18 Boeing Co. 747 jumbo jets, climbed into clear skies at 3:45 p.m. local time. It carried a Tesla roadster as a dummy payload and publicity stunt." When you stack names like the WSJ, NYT, CNN, BBC, Economist, AdWeek, AdAge, etc on one side, and count a dozen or more of them, and on the other side you have one blog post by a professor in Australia, or a hot take at The Verge, it creates a very stark picture. Maybe seeing this charted out in a table will help clarify why it's so wrong to give all these things equal weight.So hang on, I'll list all of them, give quotes, and the picture should be clear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "mention the "name" of a mannequin" → useful so the reader knows they are the right place per MOS:BOLDTITLE. "car was used for commuting" → virtually all artificial objects in space were designed for the purpose; this object is significant because it was designed for a different purpose, and had a working life doing that.  —Sladen (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just how dumb to you think readers are? They don't know which page they're on? We bold legitimate alternate names and useful redirects, but just because somebody made an ill-advised redirect does not mean putting it in the lead, and in bold, is mandatory. Starman (SpaceX) is not a harmful redirect, but it's not exactly the the best choice ever made.Has anyone stopped and thought about the quantity of rhetorical effort is being expended here to defend the idea that a lead of 211 words is TOO LONG while a mere 32 fewer words, at 179 words, is JUST RIGHT. This discussion right here has spent 900 words and counting in order to denounce this "excessive" 32 words. Do you really think any objective person is going to look at this and believe you when you say these 32 words MUST go?A bunch of editors don't like what the mainstream prestige media said about Elon Musk's publicity stunt. Don't like it. First they tried stop it from being mentioned at all, and when that didn't work, they shoved into a garbage dump at the bottom of the article, and sandbagged it with a lot of trivial hot takes, so that serious, legitimate industry observers were lumped in with Internet kooks and their woolly half-theories. Like i said, hang on and I'll post a complete list of all these sources and we can count them up. Until then the article will be safe from the threat of capsizing over these 32 words too many. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not about the number of your cherry-picked references. it is about your pervasive WP:SYNTHESIS to hijack this article to make it an imaginary Tesla ad (2018). BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those false accusations are disruptive and uncivil. I’ve asked you to provide diffs of these nonsense claims, and you never do. Please limit your talk page posts to something productive, and if possible, factual. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Comparison of sources
Question: how much weight should be given to the point of view saying this was intended at least partially as marketing, a PR stunt, compared with it only being "whimsy", along with criticisms that the outcome could be space junk or biological contamination, etc. This is probably about 90% complete. You could add more sources to any of the columns, but the proportions are about right. In the PR stunt column, 25 examples, 6 in the whimsy column, and 2 or 3 in the rest. If you look carefully, you'll notice that several of "my" 'cherry picked' sources weren't chosen by me, other editors considered them reliable enough that they chose to cite them in the article. The editors just used these articles to cite other facts, and not counting the same sources as adding weight to the view that choosing a car was at least partially intended as a PR stunt. For example, two citations of Phys.org added by Drbogdan, the New Atlas citation added by GreenC , both Planetary Society and Deutsche Welle were added by BatteryIncluded , and The Verge citation added by Sladen. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * The question I have is how much weight should be given to the content in the columns of this table. Does anyone have any opinions about how a neutral article would convey the information in the collection of sources above? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dennis, can you please stop being disruptive. I've tried twice (12) to reduce the above table to a manageable size. The first attempt was actually to make it readable, as it's extremely difficult to read the way you've written it. If nobody can be arsed to try and read it, how do you expect anyone to care? My guess is that others will simply come along and refactor it, which you will revert, you'll just get a load of stick for spamming the talk page, then you'll claim that you're being stonewalled again. Take my advice, stop all this nonsense and try to engage in civil, good faith discussion. This will not end well.
 * My three word response to your 29 kilobyte post: More cherry picking. nagualdesign 06:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @, if your primary goal is to ensure accurate WP:WEIGHT to the article for these points, then why have you not advocated to add a section on the "Whimsy/Why not" motivation? Your table indicates it as the second most widely held view (assuming a lack of cherry picking). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:26, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The earlier version of the article included two or three quotes of Elon Musk's tweets, and two or three sources that paraphrased the official reasons given by Musk and SpaceX for why the used a car and not concrete: "Why not?", "concrete is boring", "the silliest thing possible", etc. Originally I attempted to follow these assertions with counter claims by various sources that said that Musk's motivations were more than that, and his history of carefully timed media events added evidence that of course he wanted to use this to promote his brand. Nobody attacked him -- sources agreed his brand management and marketing are visionary and brilliant. But several editors couldn't stand to see that in proximity to Musk's words. A partial compromise was to include less of the official motives, to give it less weight.But now, looking at the avalanche of serious media that discuss the PR stunt aspect of this, it's unavoidable. It's also clear that the "art" topic does not deserve equal space in the lead with the marketing topic. And it's clear that it was not merely "advertising media" which said it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect to the suggestion that the sources above are cherry picked, I'd say that if they are, it would make it difficult to asses due weight. Is there any evidence that these are cherry picked? Can we see examples of sources that were left out? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I have seen several other sources that referred to the whole thing as art, but the better question is why can't we cover all of them? It isn't like the article is over long, and all seem to be supported by at least some reliable sources. 'Marketing move' is already given increased prominence in the lede (both the old version and the proposed version above), and also in the body as the first thing discussed (and also the largest section in the body). The main issue to me seems to be the complete absence of Musk's stated reason for choosing that specific payload, not the weight of stuff currently in the article. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  08:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine, we can cover all of them, but not with a "garbage dump" approach. As explained in WP:STRUCTURE, sticking a bunch of random stuff at the bottom of an article, calling it "Pop culture" or "Trivia" or "Reactions" or "Cultural impact" doesn't matter. Is miscellaneous. Off the wall spitballing like "readymade art" and "Kessler event" worries are near-fringe, and putting them at the bottom isn't so bad. Obviously, Musk/SpaceX's official motives should be explained. But the major media reaction to that is not "trivia" and doesn't belong with the other stuff. I would mention that Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website is significantly less important thn the WSJ, NYT, AP, etc. Apples and oranges.It's also categorically different: the other things (space junk, contamination, excess display of wealth, art) are all results. They're after-the-fact, and none of them are about SpaceX's intentions. Nobody said SpaceX intended to make art or space junk. Two of these topics are different than the others: the "whimsy" motive, and the marketing motive. Most serious media say that marketing was an motive before the fact. It's not a criticism, it's a serious analysis. Musk's own words admit it: "I'm hopeful that people think that if we can send a Roadster to the asteroid belt, we could probably solve Model 3 production." What people think is behind the reasons for choosing a car as payload. That's PR. It belongs in a much more prominent place. Both 'whimsy' and PR belong in the lead. Both should be explained in detail near the top or in the first section of the article. It relates to pre-launch planning, so chronologically, that's where it should go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Media and others calling it a PR or marketing move are also 'reactions' and so fit fine where they are. We could structure it another way, sure, but most editors don't seem to have wanted it the other way. If you could put together a refactor of the page with the sections moved around (per your preference) as a userspace draft, that would make it much easier to understand what you mean. Then we could have a !vote on it I suppose. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  08:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are reactions -- "things said after the launch". But they are about a different topic. All of the others are about unintended consequences. Things SpaceX either didn't think of, or didn't care about. The serious media, not your Daily Callers or your Verges, but the ones with a serious reputation for fact checking and accuracy, the media of record, focused not on speculative unintended consequences, but the real motives for choosing a car. And they say those motives were not what SpaceX claims they are. And Musck said it on a conference call with Tesla investors the day after the launch. Why is he talking about SpaceX to Tesla investors? Because the cargo was a Tesla marketing stunt. He said he hoped it would influence attitudes. I will put together what I would like: it will be much like the version I mentioned, with the objective section expanded to cover more of the official motive and the marketing motive. The Reactions is fine, but with less 'marketing' because that will be up in Objectives. The lead should summarize the whimsy objective, and the marketing objective, but not mention the reactions. Something like this.I'm hoping that this approach can gain some support now that we can see a side-by-side comparison of the quantity of source coverage on each topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The others could also be called "other people's interpretations of the 'unintended consequences'", I for one, wouldn't consider it as space junk, as it is not in earth orbit and therefore never going to get in the way of anything. The chances that it ever hits a planetary body are also infinitesimally small in the human scale timeframe, therefore these are also 'reactions' or at least can easily be interpreted as such. Once again it isn't a matter of something being 'wrong' but being editorial preference. As such, you'll need to get consensus for a change to a different style.
 * In your diff from the 12th Feb, "not merely a bit of fun, but rather as" seems like editorialising to me, or at the very least trying to beat the reader over the head with a shovel. Not a fan of that wording. There is probably some merit to including some variant of Musk stated that he chose the car as the payload because it was "something fun and without irreplaceable sentimental value". His choice was interpreted by many commentators as a marketing and public relations coup. in the lead. Not sure about the exact wording, but I personally could perhaps get behind something like that —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  09:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not committing to any specific word choice. I care about the weight given to article content reflecting the sources. The discussion about marketing belongs in the context of SpaceX saying the motive was merely their whimsical attitude. Musk said he was hoping it would reflect well on Tesla, a company ostensibly separate from SpaceX. Musk, and many sources, say the context of the Model 3’s troubles is connected to the Tesla product piggybacking on the Falcon’s fame. All of that context can be given appropriate weight with many different choices of wording. The only context for the space junk stuff is to refute the misconception that it’s space junk and even if it is, using concrete wouldn’t have made any difference. The bio contamination issue has more scientific merit. The readymade art stuff has no context; it’s right out of left field and has not caught on accounting to our sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Still working on a draft version. I'll probably just expand the current Marketing section with the sources above, and produce a draft where the same contents are reordered, as described above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rename to Tesla Roadster launch
Since being summoned by bot to an earlier discussion, it has continued to bother me that this article is incorrectly titled. Every Tesla Roadster is Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster. The title tells me almost nothing. Why not call it what it is, Tesla Roadster launch? You’re welcome to refer to the previous no consensus vote to rename, but my idea was never brought up. TimTempleton (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think most Roadsters are owned by Tesla’s customers, not Musk. I guess the unsold inventory belongs to Tesla, of which Musk owns 25%. The launch event was the test of the Falcon Heavy; its purpose was to test the rocket. Calling it Tesla Roadster Launch implies the point was to get a car into space. The cargo was there to provide necessary mass for a valid rocket test. As to why the mass was a car and not a concrete block, that was some combination of “why not?” and publicly, depending on who is yelling it. A better title probably exists but it’s pointless to even try to get consensus for a new title until other issues are settled. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the most notable part of the launch. Normally that would be the title. The current title is the equivalent of using the title Steve Jobs' iPhone for any notable incident related to the iPhone. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've carefully read about 40 articles about this (see above) and while they disagree about a lot of things, there is near-universal agreement across many sources that the most notable thing about the launch is the Falcon Heavy: it's capability, and that it was designed, built and launched by a single, privately owned company. Those who think launching a car into space is stupid or dangerous or merely a stunt still give SpaceX props for an extraordinary milestone in space technology. Maybe you're looking at different sources, but that's what I've seen. AdWeek did mention that including the car meant that the SpaceX launch would be covered in the automotive media, but that small addition was nothing compared to the coverage in all other media. There are separate articles about the historic Falcon Heavy test flight, and the Falcon Heavy. This article is only about the car. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This proposed title is a nonstarter, it implies that this article is about the launch itself, which is covered by Falcon Heavy test flight. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  07:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My proposed title tells readers the article is specifically about the launching of the car into space, which this is exclusively about. I'm surprised that there's so much disagreement. This complements the Falcon Heavy test flight, just like a forked product article complements a company article. And my experience is that the car launch got way more attention than the Falcon payload. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is not mostly about the rocket launch since it is about a specific car that was the payload for the launch. The best title for this article is Tesla Roadster in space.--Frmorrison (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frmorrison. The launch and the Falcon components are covered elsewhere. Tesla Roadster in space is by far the best title. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In any case, Tesla Roadster in space is better than the current title, which is very uninformative. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 03:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a thought – I would assume Elon Musk owns at least one other Roadster that he drives on the regulars, possibly with quite a bit of custom software (both for fun and alpha-testing) and maybe some James Bond buttons, since according to the press releases he's ever-so "whimsical." What I'm saying is that I followed a bot to comment on this article not guessing from the title that it would be about the stock car floating, Muskless, in space, even though I had followed that news story closely. Rename. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Coming this Summer: Muskless: In space no one can smell you scream!
 * He does. He still has his first Roadster -- the one he launched was a later model. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * I too would vote for "Tesla Roadster in space". However, during the previous requested move discussion, this option didn't gain much consensus. A month has passed since then; is it worth trying again? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd probably support that title, but I feel it's way too early to try again. Wait 6 months. — JFG talk 18:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd support renaming still. What you proposed isn't a great title, but it's better than the current one and we're quickly approaching a WP:BIKESHED situation. I think most of us agree that the current title is bad, but there hasn't been enough support around a single proposal yet. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Unnecessary drama on the subject content brought no consensus for the name one month ago. Maybe we can proceed now with a cordial round. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not do a BOLD rename without an WP:RM, that includes notifications and time for resolution and community discussion. According to RM, BOLD renames are not allowed if there is reason to believe it would be controversial (which there is). Just making sure as you said "cordial round" which kind of sounds like on the side but maybe I am misinterpreting. --  Green  C  16:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speaking of drama... I said to perform another RM. But I see Dennis Bratland is back with his shenanigans to stop it and first change the contents to morph the article into Tesla ad (2018). As long as [he] is active here, expect no constructive discussion on the move. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you must express your dissatisfaction with an editor, do it without calling them names, please. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I wish you had the same enthusiasm to edit Dennis' insults to other editors calling us "hypocrit", "liar", "drunk", etc. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you have diffs for those insults? Please post them on my talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems like this has been a big sticking point for quite some time. I'm not sure what the best answer is. I saw someone suggest Tesla Roadster (spacecraft) which doesn't fit, but maybe something like Tesla Roadster (payload) would be more fitting? Close to your launch, but launch sounds more like the event rather than what the car itself is. — Zzyzx Wolfe  (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 20:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The term "payload" is hardly exclusive to spaceflight, so another adjective may be needed. Alternatively, I suggest Tesla Roadster (Solar System object). SSO is a technical term that encompasses natural satellites, in-service artificial satellites and spacecraft, and human space junk and debris. It's also one of those technical terms that's so exactly says what's on the tin that any lay reader will get it. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That certainly works too. Though, at least in context, I don't know that there's many other Tesla Roadsters one would consider to be payload. — Zzyzx Wolfe  (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 01:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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 talk 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 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? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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 Wikipedia 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. --  Green  C  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? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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? -- Green  C  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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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. -- Green  C  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 Wikipedia 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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 talk 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 18:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Pertinence and placement
First off, thanks 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 talk 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. "[T]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 ) 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 would probably say, Wikipedia 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, <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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 Wikipedia is to inform. Fair enough? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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)


 * I appreciate the note of support. Be sure to add your two cents to the RfC below.
 * Has anyone taken the Layperson Challenge yet..? <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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.
 * [Lead images should] 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. Wikipedia 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.) <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 talk 08:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: About Planet Nine, perhaps we could check if consensus has changed. — JFG talk 08:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * With respect, that sounds like you're pandering a little. Wikipedia 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 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". <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 10:13, 29 June 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, 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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. 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 talk 23:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 16:09, 6 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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 talk 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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 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 ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK

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)

PAGE ]]) 14:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 15:46, 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 ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Excellent feedback . Have uploaded a version with an even steeper angle!  Is that better?  —Sladen (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * No, it really doesn't. And it's not even remotely accurate either. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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 talk 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 17:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the frequent edits
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. Wikipedia 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.<P>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 Wikipedia 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.<P>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.<P>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 Wikipedia editors, not the public - in short, it's Wikipedia editors slapping themselves on the back and truly means nothing. Readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia'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-Wikipedia editor reads the article, they're likely to notice those little "nits" and then see Wikipedia as sloppy and possibly (likely) unreliable.  Wikipedia already has that reputation.  Why add to it?  All articles should be good articles, little round plus sign symbols notwithstanding. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 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.<P>"All articles should be good articles" is a non sequitur. That's not how Wikipedia 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.<P>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). <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Dennis Bratland: I never claimed I had to do anything (how did you get that impression?). Not putting a full stop in the middle of a sentence is not just a guideline, it is basic English. Yes such an error can happen, but you shouldn't revert an edit that fixes this error. The linked edit is exactly this. If a random IP would have done this we would have warned them about vandalism. JUSTFIXIT reminds editors to spend 10 seconds on fixing it, indeed. I did fix it. You reverted the fix together with something else. I fixed it again. You reverted the fix again, this time as separate edit exclusively for the full stop. I explained the situation on your talk page, but no, you removed it and made snarky comments. So I posted it here. --mfb (talk) 00:07, 9 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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tesla Roadster Falcon 9H.png
 * 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 talk 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , 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 Wikipedia 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. -- Green  C  15:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 16:01, 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)
 * How is the background a copyvio? It very clearly falls under .  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 ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * 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. --  Green  C  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. -- Green  C  02:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it wasn't, and I'm going to prove it... <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 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 Wikipedia, 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. Sincerely, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello : 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 Wikipedia, to contribute content compatible with Wikipedia/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 . Would suspect that all editors aspire to producing such beautiful photomontages—where they are to be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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,, 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 Wikipedia 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. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for returning, hopefully for a continued longer-term. I am supportive of the time and effort you personally have put into pictures and illustrations for Wikipedia.  I hope you can continue to find time to respond to requests for illustrations—you often have good ideas for solutions.  Things like the Javascript-graph are wonderful demonstrations because they include the source and it is clear to all where the effort has come from.  Let us collectively make libre images to illustrate our libre articles—the basis of what Wikipedia is about.  —Sladen (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Guess what, User Yann blocked me indefinitely from Commons for posting in nagual's talk page a polite request to Yann to investigate the origin of the car/rocket diagram and to lift the ban on nagual if proven to be his design after all. Banned, just like that. Lovely. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , request for review and revert of block made to in commons:Special:Diff/310246740.  —Sladen (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another commons admin has lifted Rowan's ban, but Nagual's talk page has been totally blanked, not even with a revdel mark. I have brought the situation to the attention of the two involved commons admins. Something is definitely strange, and other veteran editors are complaining loudly. Follow the events at c:User talk:Rowan Forest. — JFG talk 02:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: following a discussion of the events at c:COM:AN, the revision history has been restored, and the blocking admin's behaviour is being scrutinized. — JFG talk 02:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And now, the picture has been restored, so that we can all discuss its authorship and copyright status in the appropriate forum: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tesla Roadster Falcon 9H.png. — JFG talk 03:24, 9 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)

Sound in space
In reference to the Roadster's sound system playing Space Oddity, the article said …even though the car's speakers cannot emit sound in space, I changed it to …even though sound cannot be transmitted in the vacuum of space. Neither version is technically super-accurate, because acoustic pressure can marginally influence the not-totally-empty interplanetary medium. However, I think that for all intents and purposes, we can say that "sound" as we know it, especially in the limited range of human-audible music, indeed cannot be transmitted in the "vacuum" of space.

This was discussed a while ago but the text remained unclear. If we say nothing, people may remark "oh but there's no sound in space, this does not make sense". If we say something, we must be accessible to all readers, not only science buffs. In any case, the "sound in space" issue has nothing to do with the speakers being somehow "unable to emit sound", which is why I changed the text. Other ideas welcome. — JFG talk 22:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't take part in the previous discussion, but I know enough to say that the speakers would emit sound/vibrations that would pass through the structure itself, regardless of the surrounding vacuum. If you had your teeth clenched around the rear spoiler, for example, ...you'd probably be dead now. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 22:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * LOL. Perhaps David Bowie – who no longer fears death but presumably still loves music and nerdiness – has his teeth clenched to the rear spoiler, and this is why they don't publish a picture of the whole contraption drifting past the orbit of Mars right now. — JFG talk 22:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If we state something, it must be correct ie. scientifically accurate. The statement "even though sound cannot be transmitted in the vacuum of space" is not accurate in all situations. It is 100% accurate the speakers do not emit enough energy to transmit sound in a vacuum. Thus we say the speakers themselves can't emit sound without needing to go down the rabbit hole if there is sound in space or not, which has nothing to do with this article and shouldn't even be brought up, given how complex the topic gets (see previous discussions for sources). -- Green  C  23:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that the topic is complex and out of scope of this article. Please consider that it's easier for a reader to understand that, under normal circumstances, the vacuum of space cannot transmit sound, than to understand that some kind of super-exotic sound may be transmitted in space, but that ordinary speakers would be totally inappropriate for this purpose. — JFG talk 23:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not complex. GreenC claims (reference in hand) that since there are a few atoms per cubic meter, that makes outer space not really a vacuum and therefore the sound is transmitted, but humans can't hear it. The sentence does not need so many qualifiers on the physics of sound, just stick with "no sound in space", it is scientifically and pragmatically correct. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * JFG For anyone who is aware sound can travel in space, it is not easier to understand, just the opposite it creates confusion. -- Green  C  23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly, but how many people are aware of that? 0.1% of our readership? I know I wasn't aware until I read the detailed explanations in sources you provided, although I'm well-versed in physics and engineering. Most people start from the assumption that there is no sound in space, and this assumption is generally correct. It's a bit like Newtonian gravity is generally correct unless you look at particle physics or gravitational lensing. Let's prioritize the 99.9% who are not aware of such subtleties. — JFG talk 23:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it would presumptive to assume anything about a readers knowledge. Our job is to get things right. It doesn't require complexity, the way it was worded was simple and accurate: the car's speakers can't emit sound in space. 99% will understand that, the other 1% will also. A bigger issue is why it's even mentioned at all since 99% of the readers know there are no humans on-board, the disclaimer is superfluous. --  Green  C  23:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * More bikeshedding. Per WP:TALK, WP:NOTFORUM, this kind of time-wasting should be nipped in the bud. The editors who have attached themselves to this article continue to create a poisonous atmosphere. Please write a simple, plain English statement in the article that the music is inaudible, and close this thread. I suggest again those editors who have dominated this article for so long all take a break for a few weeks, maybe a couple months. There are plenty of other editors out there who can do this as well as you all, without this drama and henpecking --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The only comment here stirring drama is yours. Please remain civil. Your suggestion to simply write that "the music is inaudible" sounds good to me. What do others think? — JFG talk 00:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I suggest you please work on the article draft you have now in your user space, so that we have an idea of your perspective and approach. I would like to see what you envision for this article but in a draft, as supposed as critiques in this Talk page. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 00:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not accurate to say "the car's speakers cannot emit sound in space" because they are emitting sound, it's just that that sound is traveling through the body of the car/rocket as opposed to through a gaseous medium. If the cameras actually had microphones on them, they likely would've picked up any music playing through the speakers, albeit quietly. Frankly, rather than confuse things, I would just leave the sentence as The car's sound system was looping the Bowie song "Space Oddity"[16][17] (the "as a symbolic gesture" part is editorializing on the part of that article). --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00F;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * That's a good point, sound can travel through any medium (including water or metal) it's not stopped by a vacuum. Same principle as jaw-bone ear-buds for cell-phones. Sound is sound regardless of medium. -- Green  C  00:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And now, we shall all wonder whether SpaceX should have added microphones glued to the car body! — JFG talk 00:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

✅. Indeed, even with the best intentions for accuracy, that part has shown to cause WP:Butterfly effect. Twice. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support The car's sound system was looping the Bowie song "Space Oddity".[16][17] (or WTTE), removing any mention of sound and the rather out-of-scope topic of whether sound can arguably pass through the near-vacuum of space. See KISS principle. Cheers. <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 12:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Tesla co-founded by Elon Musk?
In this article, Elon is cited as a founder of Tesla, with cited as justification. The Tesla section of the Elon Musk article gives a different story, citing and, and a recent mini edit war has resulted in "co-founder" of Tesla being removed from that article's infobox. My interpretation is that Elon was not one of the original founders but came to a legal agreement that he was entitled to call himself a co-founder based on his early involvement. Rather than start another edit war here, can we agree to change "founded by Elon Musk" in the lead of this article to "controlled by Elon Musk" or similar? Whether or not he founded the company is immaterial to this article in any case, IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow the citations, and add an (equally cited) footnote noting the specifics. —Sladen (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow which citations? They are somewhat contradictory... Rosbif73 (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok controversial but I think it would require an RfC to establish consensus before people go around changing every instance as part of an ongoing miniwar somewhere else. It's difficult to find a single word that best describes both SpaceX and Tesla other than "CEO" which is technically accurate at the time of launch, but looses something of his history and role in these companies. Controlled isn't accurate for Tesla as no single person controls Tesla (board etc) and makes it sound sinister. "Headed" might also work but again looses some importance/weight of his involvement. -- Green  C  12:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Musk is the founder of SpaceX and was clearly involved in founding Tesla. Taking it any further is outside the scope of this article. Otherwise it becomes a point of view fork. The statement "The car and rocket are products of Tesla and SpaceX, both companies founded by Elon Musk." is fine. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)