File talk:Falcon rocket family.svg

Might some versions of this graphic be helpful

I started a conversation on User:Huntster's Talk page on the English Wikipedia about this image and its use on en.WP on 9 March 2014.

Since a part of that discussion is about potentially making several additional variations of this graphic available, I thought it would be best to have more of that discussion here on Wikimedia, so others could be involved if they wish.

Here is the discussion to date. N2e (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Invited review; Falcon rocket family graphic

Hi Huntster. User:Craigboy helpfully created a new version of his widely-used graphic of the four rockets in the Falcon family. The old one had an incorrect rendering of the Falcon Heavy (showing the side cores the identical height as the central booster core). Since SpaceX later released data showing that was not the case, I had a request in for some time asking Craigboy to update his drawing, if he could. That's on the Wikimedia Talk page for his old graphic. His new version also shows some rockets with and without the fairing, and with and without landing legs.

At any rate, I replaced the old/incorrect image on six or eight pages in the English Wikipedia yesterday. Thus, four questions for you:

1. would you be willing to review the sizing and placement of those? In each case, I left them where they were before, but I could not get the "180px" or "300px" or "450px" parm to work for me. Every time I tried to use it, the text of the caption went missing. So I eventually gave up, and just left them all as "thumb" so the text would show. For example, on the Falcon rocket family article, it would probably be better to be a larger graphic, like it used to be. Etc. You can probably just find the links for them from my contribs page.
2. I'm not really a graphic editing expert, as you know. Since the only graphic available to me on Wikimedia that has the correct rocket proportions is the single option Craigboy made, with a bunch of the various versions and models of each version, it could be the case that some different graphics showing a smaller subset of the Falcon rockets, with out showing all of the rockets, might be in order for some articles. E.g., maybe in the F9v1.0 article we might show only the F9v1.0 models, while in the F9 article we should probably show both the F1 predecessor and both versions of the F9v1.0 and F9v1.1. Etc. In any event, I mentioned that to Craigboy in a post today, but he's been kind of busy, so don't know if he will choose to make those. This might, or might not, be something that interests you; so I just mention it for that reason.
3. This is just an opinion question. I'm thinking (now) that "versions and models of each version" might be the best wording. I believe I used exactly the opposite of that wording in my various captions and edit comments left today. I believe I generally said "models and versions of each model". What do you think? Seems that since SpaceX calls the v1.0 "version 1.0" maybe my new thinking is better than my old. Would very much appreciate your thoughts on this, and maybe I'll go through them and fix them.
4. I've never done much on any of the other language Wikipedias. Is it considered courteous to notify folks who use the old/incorrect version that a new version(s) is available? Or just let them figure it out by a bottom-up emergent process?

Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Huntster. Would you be willing to look at a problem I'm having with the Falcon rocket family graphic on Wikipedia:SpaceX reusable launch system development program. The GA reviewer has asked for the graphic to be larger than "thumb" -- but anytime I replace it with, say, "250px", the caption disappears. I agree that the graphic should be larger; just can't seem to get the File wikicode to cooperate. N2e (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

N2e, regarding the last post (I'll work on the others next), I'm not sure what you're speaking of. I've looked as all the articles it is used in, and both image and caption look fine to me. If you're still seeing a problem, mind taking a screenshot and uploading to imgur or something? Sorry for not responding before now, I've been preoccupied. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, on this one, it got resolved. After I fixed every other item on the punch list, but had trouble getting the graphic larger per the GA reviewers request (and then asked for your help), the GA reviewer fixed it theirself. Somehow, "...|thumb..." replaced with "...|300px..." wasn't working for me, and dropped the caption. But it looks like the GA reviewer changed it to "...|thumb|400px..." (leaving both parms), and it's working. I figure it is some kind of esoteric syntax thing. N2e (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

N2e: Actually, it is the thumb parameter which allows the caption. See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax for details on the various image parameters. Basically, if you're including an image in an article, always always always use the "thumb" paramter. Pretty much everything else is optional. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for the other stuff.

1) is now resolved I think.

Maybe. The idea was that this new image is wider, and looks (perhaps) a bit bad forced into the same size as the old (fewer rockets) graphic. The old one had something like four, and the new one has eight rockets and 12 rocket cores. So I was just suggesting that someone besides me take a look at the aesthetics of the thing on each of the half-dozen or so pages I added that new image to. You might still want to take a look. But if not, no worries. N2e (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly I'll double check each page. I just wish he'd made the lines a little thicker, so that the thumbs were easier to see. But oh well. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

2) I admit SVGs are not my thing, since they are code rather than pixels. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to cut selected material from this graphic to create new images. Just let me know exactly what configurations you're looking for and I'll see what I can do.

Okay, ball in my court. With your permission, I will move this entire conversation on that new image over to the image talk page on Wikimedia, to both leave a history and to allow other interested editors to weigh in if interested. N2e (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You definitely don't need my permission! I can manually do SVG stuff and play around in Inkscape, I'm just not great at it. If you can put together a list of the modifications you'd like, I'll try to do so. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

3) I actually think "models and versions" would be best, since each rocket iteration is a model (F1, F9, F-H), and there are versions (1.0, 1.1, etc) of each model. But, that's just an opinion and I would defer to your judgment on this.

Thanks for the second opinion. I will take your input and will go through the captions I left and reconsider, with your thoughts in my mind as well. N2e (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

4) I'm sure it would be appreciated to let others know that a new version is available, but because of language barriers this is virtually never done. And, since captions may specifically reference the layout of the image, we can't simply replace instances of the old version with the new one. Ultimately, we just have to hope that someone at the different languages notices there's a new image.

— Huntster (t @ c) 16:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know how that normally works in Wikimedia/Wikipedia image culture. N2e (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not ideal, but I don't trust computer translations to try and get my point across. Also difficult considering the large number of languages that use the image. And I only know English, lol. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

On editing the SVG to make several additional variations of the image

Recapitulating the discussion from above, so that it might be meaningfully continued here in one place:

2) I'm not really a graphic editing expert, as you know. Since the only graphic available to me on Wikimedia that has the correct rocket proportions is the single option Craigboy made, with a bunch of the various versions and models of each version, it could be the case that some different graphics showing a smaller subset of the Falcon rockets, with out showing all of the rockets, might be in order for some articles. E.g., maybe in the F9v1.0 article we might show only the F9v1.0 models, while in the F9 article we should probably show both the F1 predecessor and both versions of the F9v1.0 and F9v1.1. Etc. In any event, I mentioned that to Craigboy in a post today, but he's been kind of busy, so don't know if he will choose to make those. This might, or might not, be something that interests you; so I just mention it for that reason. --- N2e 01:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

2) I admit SVGs are not my thing, since they are code rather than pixels. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to cut selected material from this graphic to create new images. Just let me know exactly what configurations you're looking for and I'll see what I can do. --- Huntster 16:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, ball in my court. With your permission, I will move this entire conversation on that new image over to the image talk page on Wikimedia, to both leave a history and to allow other interested editors to weigh in if interested. N2e (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You definitely don't need my permission! I can manually do SVG stuff and play around in Inkscape, I'm just not great at it. If you can put together a list of the modifications you'd like, I'll try to do so. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a "virtual transclusion" by copying that dialogue here on Wikimedia on the Talk page for the graphic.

I will get back here in the next week or so and attempt to answer your question from my point of view. In the meantime, any other editor who is so inclined, and believes that perhaps some of the Wikipedia articles which now use this graphic don't need all 8 rockets shown in the image illustrating that article, are certainly free to weigh in with their own thoughts, or if they know how to do it, make some SVG crops as they think are appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Added this to my watchlist :) — Huntster (t @ c) 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, back as promised. @Huntster: The list I think would be good is:

1. I agree with the editor (Lar) who added the comment about the order in the current graphic being less than ideal for the F9v1.1 and FH. I would make one image with all the rockets as shown, but with the legs-attached version following the no-legs version for both of those rockets. Rationale: for the F9v1.1 we know the flight order. For the FH, it is a guess which will fly first--with legs or expendable--so it is really image editors choice on FH, but might want to just do the order the same for now to eliminate questions about it.
2. I think that versions with only F9v1.0 and F9v1.1 would be good in the two articles by the same name.
3. F1 and F9 v1.0 for the Falcon 1 and Falcon 1e articles
4. FH without legs and FH with legs for the FH article
5. You might be able to think of others, but that would be my first cut.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Illustration

The Falcon family illustration is helpful but can it be put more into chrono order? The versions with legs should be to the right of those without. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As of August 2014, this svg file is no longer used on any Wikipedia page in the article space. It has, however, been replaced by a derivative work, made from the original svg image by Craigboy.

The derivative image is File:Falcon rocket family.svg.png, and is found on some Wikipedia articles thusly:

[[File:Falcon rocket family.svg.png|thumb|400px|right|From left to right, [[Falcon 1]], [[Falcon 9 v1.0]], three versions of [[Falcon 9 v1.1]], and two versions of [[Falcon Heavy]]. The SpaceX reusable rocket technology is being developed for both Falcon 9 v1.1 and Falcon Heavy.]]

To date, no editor seems to have edited the order of the F9 v1.1 versions or the FH versions per the suggestion by Lar, above.

As of mid-August, all three versions of the F9 v1.1 rocket have successfully flown, and neither of the two FH versions has yet flown.

As before, thanks to Craigboy for creating the original image! N2e (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No grid fins shown

The ones with landing legs should have grid fins (and on the Falcon Heavy they are all at the same height) - Rod57 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)