This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zond program article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to
Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
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 Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors
Comments
[1] is a good source of information on this stuff. Additionally, the Zond program needs pretty mission boxes like
Soyuz 11 and friends. --
Jkeiser 06:21, 21 Jun 2004 (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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose I'm absolutely sympathetic to your desire for consistency, but I think you're approaching it the wrong way. Given that the overarching parent article is at
Soviet space program, a spelling also reflected in the navbox title (
Luna programme's prominence there is noted, however). I don't see the issue as having strong national ties, but UQ makes a good case for American English as the tiebreaker. Thus, I would support moving all instances of "programme" in article and category titles relating to the Soviet space program to "program." How does that sound? --
BDD (
talk)
17:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)reply
I'll call your bet with a
navbox of my own, which favors program. It's worth noting that the articles linked in each navbox demonstrate the inconsistency, though. --
BDD (
talk)
20:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Soviet space program is part of the Cold War space race, which did not involve Britain. Indeed, space should preferentially use US English, since it has a major space program, for non-English topics, unlike other English-speaking nations, per
WP:TIES ; the only ones that should not use US English are the programs of English speaking nations (and ESA, which would use British) --
70.24.247.242 (
talk)
04:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, it is the primary English-speaking program. And the Soviet-US space race makes the Soviet program highly politically tied to the American program, so should use American English. Indeed, using British English for the Soviet program seems biased.
70.24.247.242 (
talk)
04:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per
WP:RETAIN to keep original spelling. Regarding consistency there are numerous examples of articles using different engvar and the consensus is usually to retain the existing variety, I think trying to change articles for the sake of consistency will inevitably lead to dispute.
Zarcadia (
talk)
10:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose essentially per Zarcadia; national ties are the only reason that spelling should be changed, and there are no strong national ties to any English speaking country. I also strongly oppose the position that all spaceflight has national ties to America; that's like saying "the USA is the largest English-speaking country, therefore the whole of Wikipedia should be en-US". That's simply not how WP:ENGVAR works. Just keep things as they are, and make sure the alternative spelling in each case has a redirect. --W.D.Graham12:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)reply
The Soviet program has strong ties to the American program, it was the Cold War
Space Race, so the Soviet program should use American English. It definitely has not hard ties to Britain. --
76.65.128.252 (
talk)
05:28, 16 August 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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Suggest merge July 2017
Zond 1968A has no content not already here; the failed mission will have very little to report. What few facts there are could be moved here, and all the missions organized in tabular form. --
Wtshymanski (
talk)
18:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: