Talk:VLS-1 V03

SRB
Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Space Shuttle also uses solid fuel booster rockets? Mat-C 12:12, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Engineering Failure??
Is this really an "engineering failure". None of the references I saw gave any indication of what the cause of the accident was. -- Webgeer 23:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

rename?
2003 Brazilian rocket explosion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuriybrisk (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

VLS-1 V03 → 2003 Alcântara VLS accident – The information on this article deals exclusively with an event - the accident involving the VLS launcher, so according to WP naming conventions it should be renamed to 2003 Alcantara VLS accident - similar to Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. There is nothing on the article about the rocket itself. Therefore, I'm going to propose the article be moved back. Limongi (talk) 12:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)*Comment This isn't a reusable vehicle, it's a single use launcher, so whether or not it had an accident, it would still be the VLS-1 V03 mission. As other space mission articles are written like the current name, and some of them also document accidents, and this was an unmanned vehicle... either naming method works fine. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This article clearly falls under WP:NCE ("events and incidents, such as military conflicts, terrorist attacks, transportation accidents, natural disasters, and the like"). As for the "new naming convention" for individual launches, it is a suggestion and not a WP naming convention. In this specific case, there was a serious accident that occurred prior to launch killing 21 people, falling under WP:EVENT. Limongi (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The flight and incident are synonymous, and it would be a simple matter to expand details of the vehicle itself. That said, there are sufficient details available on the payloads to switch to the preferred content arrangement under WP:LAUNCHES, thus eliminating the need for a launch article, so as a compromise we could rescope this article to deal solely with the accident, moving all but summary details on the flight to new articles on the payloads. For the record, WP:ONLYESSAY would seem to apply to Limongi's attempted counterargument to the quoted guideline. -- W.  D.   Graham  16:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WDGraham, WP:LAUNCHES reads:
 * "Exceptions: Launches that resulted in the loss of life may be considered notable enough to warrant their own article under wider notability criteria (WP:EVENT), however such an article should be focussed around the accident, and only be created where there is sufficent information available to expand the article beyond a stub." And no, the flight and accident are not synonymous, as there was no flight. The explosion occurred days before the scheduled launch. Limongi (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but there was a flight scheduled, please don't be pedantic. And the passage you quoted was pretty much what I was suggesting under the compromise proposal. -- W.  D.   Graham  19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point out how "we could rescope this article to deal solely with the accident". Have you actually read the article? It is entirely about the accident. Limongi (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we're both missing each others' points. Regardless of what is currently in this article, it could easily be expanded. This is more about restricting the directions in which it expands so as not to encroach upon future articles about the planned mission, and establishing that both can be covered separately. -- W.  D.   Graham  01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think we were missing each others' points. I don't see a problem with restricting the scope of the article to cover only the accident. In fact, that is precisely why I'm proposing the name change, so that the article's scope will be limited to information about that specific event, and not the mission or rocket. I didn't want to create a new article, as I believe that an article about the accident should be prioritized due to its notability. If you check the pages that link to the current article you will see that nearly all of them are directing there due to the accident. The article could easily be expandend in that direction as there is a multitude of sources, as well as a 200-page report by the investigation board. So I guess the question is, should we rename this article or create a separate one? Limongi (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is there a hindsight bias?
Recently I came across the phenomenon of hindsight bias and I wondered whether this bias might also be present in this Wikipedia article... According to the hindsight bias, in retrospect it is overestimated how likely, predictable and/or inevitable an event was, and obviously a study has even found it in Wikipedia articles on accidents/catastrophes: doi:10.1007/s00426-017-0865-7 So I wondered whether that could be the case with this article, too, – and whether the disaster is presented as more predictable and inevitable than it actually was before. Maybe we should search again for information that would have spoken against its occurrence? Apparently, the hindsight bias occurs because of a retrospective focus on information that spoke FOR the event while ignoring (or not taking seriously) information that would have argued for another outcome, which then, of course, leads to the impression of inevitability and foreseeability... This is why I wondered whether this article might also be affected by hindsight bias and should thus be checked again for this? --2A02:810D:1300:38E5:61F3:7C52:F3B4:D1D8 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)