This article 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
The article contains
orbital elements which are automatically updated by
a bot. Updates usually occur on alternate Saturdays. For more details, please see
Template:Orbit.
Proposed 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: not moved, the "satellite" part of the title appears to be part of the title, not a disambiguator. I did not see any prohibition against this naming in
WP:SPACENAME, and brief search showed that sources tend to use the "satellite" part of the name as well, unless they are talking about the SMOS mission, in which case they use the "mission" part of the name. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
11:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment? What is this topic about? The intro is quite unclear, which goes against the general case for fewer descriptors. Later text, like the section Launcher, makes it seem like it is a satellite. Is it not? What is "malformed" and counter to "common sense"?
ENeville (
talk)
20:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)reply
The spacecraft is called "Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity", not "Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity satellite"; therefore the presence of the word "satellite" in the article title is misleading as it implies that it is part of the spacecraft's name. Since the name is not ambiguous, the word "satellite" does not need to be added for disambiguation (and even if it did,
it should be in parentheses to avoid confusion), and per
WP:PRECISION we should use nothing but the spacecraft's name in this case. --W.D.Graham18:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
I think that the word satellite in the title indicates well what the exact subject is. But I don't feel strongly for one way or the other. If you move it, it will be OK with me. Cheers,
BatteryIncluded (
talk)
23:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)reply
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.
Requesting Move 2
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.
Strong support, No need to disambiguate and titles shouldn't include descriptions. Needs to be brought in line. Current title is also misleading as it implies that "satellite" is part of the vehicle's name, and is at odds with every other spaceflight article that I am aware of. --W.D.Graham13:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The proposed title could well be the title of an article on soil moisture and ocean salinity, and avoiding that ambiguity (not found in the other article titles cited) is a good thing.
168.12.253.66 (
talk)
16:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Good point, but it is and it isn't. The page title should be recognizable to readers (
WP:AT of course). The current title with satellite (lower case note) is far more recognisable. This doesn't apply to the Armstrong example. Perhaps
Henry VIII is a better example, we do add of England to the title although it's not really necessary, but we don't say Henry VIII King of England because that doesn't add anything to the reader experience. So while we don't want to put the whole article (or even the whole lead) into the title, we do sometimes find a little content helpful.
Andrewa (
talk)
17:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)reply
"Programme" is part of the Living Planet Programme's name. "Imager" is part of the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager's name, so by your logic "satellite" is part of this mission's name, so the current title is misleading. --W.D.Graham19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Note to closing admin. I feel that the rationale given by the opposes, that the presence of a (unparenthesised!) disambiguator is necessary to clarify the topic to readers even though it isn't needed due to ambiguity, at odds with the wider practise elsewhere on this site - not only for spaceflight articles but in general. Please could you consider taking
WP:LOCALCONSENSUS into account when you close this discussion. --W.D.Graham19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Speaking only for myself, my argument is that the word "satellite" is needed due to ambiguity, not that it isn't needed due to ambiguity, as you seem to imply above. Of course, the way your comment is phrased is makes it somewhat ambiguous as to what you are saying, and that can be a serious problem. I am opposed to ambiguity. In any case, please do not tell the closer what I "really" mean; I mean what I actually said.
168.12.253.66 (
talk)
19:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Support to Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity. The extra word 'satellite' appears to be thrown into the title, and is not backed-up by any of the literature I can find. According to a quick literature search, 'mission' appears to be much more prominent than any other extra word. Indeed, I think the mission is more interesting than the satellite. However I don't see the need to suggest moving to Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity mission. +
mt22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose - the parentheses are unnecessary and would contribute nothing to the title. The article lead is not at all ambiguous about what the name of the satellite is, but it can be made redundantly unambiguous if there's any real problem here - not that I think there is one.
168.12.253.66 (
talk)
16:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose the proposal if I have understood it correctly. The parentheses are entirely unnecessary and the title reads better without them. The present lead sentence explains perfectly what the article subject is (a satellite), what the article subject is named (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity), and what the article subject is called (SMOS); the article title cannot and should not attempt to replace this.
168.12.253.66 (
talk)
21:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on
Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.