Talk:Stoke Space

The funding record isn't noteworthy

Am I alone in thinking the accounting they've done over the years isn't that interesting? $100,000,000 here, another few million there. It barely qualifies as "history", what in this section sets them apart from any other start-up? It reads like an overly enthusiastic blog. 2A02:C7C:D5F6:A300:E4A0:6532:6E3B:2EF5 (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Funding history is pretty commonly included in articles for startups, especially younger startups with no revenue. The paragraph for the Series A round could probably be condensed though. StereoFolic (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

took a shot at it StereoFolic (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it could be condensed, as their funding isn't too important regarding the technologies the company is developing, probably good to talk about their social media presence and their recent tests. TeeboTibo (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

inconsequent editing

If we need two separate articles anyway, then all the rocket delelopment parts here belong to Stoke Space Nova, and the superfluous and wrongly named "technology" section, than will never be updated to reflect the main page, can go as well. Just state they build Nova and then link to the main article!

Btw, no mentioning of LC-14 here at all, ignoring the building of the launch mount completely.

Good example of too many too small articles about space created during the past years that nobody can keep track on and keep up to date! ~2025-32728-08 (talk) 09:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Stoke Hopper SN2.jpg
• Stoke topdeck.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)