Talk:SpaceX Starship integrated flight test

	This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This redirect was accepted on 23 November 2023 by reviewer DreamRimmer (talk · contribs).

Spaceflight

This redirect 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

Rocketry

This redirect 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

United States: Texas

	United States portal This redirect 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
	Texas portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Texas.

Requested move 26 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:CONCISE/WP:TITLECON, use Arabic Numerals, use cardinal numerals (1,2) instead of ordinal numerals (1st, 2nd), as they are shorter, especially in Arabic Numeral glyph form instead of English numeral word form. Also is consistent with the abbreviated names "IFT1" and "IFT2", which are not "1st IFT" and "2nd IFT" -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also consistent with other rocket flight articles, like Unity 22 / Galactic 03 / Blue Origin NS-19 / Falcon 9 flight 20 -- which use ordinal Arabic numerals -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with revised names This proposal was first made with proposed names "SpaceX Starship integrated test flight n" (note order of last two words, ITF), while the WP:OFFICIAL and most WP:COMMONNAME is "IFT". This appears to have merely been a typo, and I initially agreed without noticing the difference. After discussion, I've amended the proposal and am asking the following two editors, who agreed before the issue was highlighted, to reaffirm or reject the revised word order. My original response:
- Agree And there are going to be a few more, so establishing a pattern is important. I'd worry about too many separate articles for IFT-3 through IFT-99, but I expect SpaceX to transition to Starlink-carrying flights as soon as they possibly can, which will trigger a name change and a chance to reconsider the policy. (And we get to figure out the transition from SpaceX Starship flight tests to List of SpaceX Starship launches.) 97.102.205.224 (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CodemWiki and Ultimograph5: do you agree with this tweak? I think it's minor enough we can amend this move proposal and let it continue, rather than starting a new one. I've edited your responses to "half-agree" pending your acceptance. 97.102.205.224 (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC) (updated 11:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I am the nominator I have no problem flipping "flight" and "test", it was supposed to be the same order, but I accidentally flipped it when I wrote the proposal (it was copypaste from the first pair to the second pair, which is why it got repeated) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I was about to make this proposal, so yes "flight test" in place of "test flight" is ideal. CodemWiki (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Makes sense, and I like the simplicity of it. CodemWiki (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (to original word order) Good to get a naming pattern going, there will be a lot of these. Ultimograph5 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree This is definitely better for consistency, provided you make the changes you mentioned in your disagreement. ChekhovsGunman (talk) 01:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Per above. – 𝙰𝚔𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚍𝚎𝚟™ 🗿 05:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 20:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is what is done for other flights

Redacted II (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the proposed names are clearer and more concise. I don't know of any other articles describing a series of events which use this format.

ErrorDestroyer (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per above, There are not any other articles using the first/second format. This proposed format is done on so many flight pages. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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