Talk:Laika

Incorrect quotation?

Originally in the "Training and Voyage" section, there was a quote from the Sven Grahn article referenced in which he quotes Malashenkov as saying "It was practically impossible to create a reliable system of a temperature control in such small [sic] term."

However, if you actually read the Malashenkov abstract referenced, the correct quotation is "It turned out that it was practically impossible to create a reliable temperature control system in such limited time constraints."

I don't know where Grahn got his quote, but I fixed this.

Laika Breed

When people type in Laika, they should really be directed to the the breed of dog, not one particular dog, which wasn't even the Laika breed. Instead, on the top there should be the italics banner referring people to the space dog if need be. At the very least, it should refer people merely to the disamgiuation page, but to the breed page.--RossF18 (talk) 16:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That is already covered in the dab page; when people type in "Laika", they should be directed to all options, not one in particular, and we can't add them all here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. But they are directed to the Russian space dog for some reason. When people type in Laika, they should be directed to all options, but they aren't. They should be directed to the most common option and that's the dog breed, not a Russian space dog. Thus, when people type in Laika, they should first see the dog breed and a disambiguation link directing them to other, not the Russian space dog and disambiguation page directing them to the breed. --RossF18 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverting until the discussion is complete. We should move Laika to Laika (space dog) and let Laika redirect directly to the dog breed. Disambiguation pages are for other uses, not for people looking for a dog breed that should be the main article.--RossF18 (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going about this the wrong way, and clunking up a featured article isn't the best way to go. It's the redirect that you appear to be concerned with. I recognize your good faith efforts, but you're going about addressing it the wrong way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can conclusively establish that the redirect is going to a less popular page, that can be sorted in the dab page and by fixing the redirect, but it's not done by adding more links to the top of this article. I believe you are saying that Laika is more commonly used for the breed than for the individual dog; please establish that, and then that would be addressed by fixing the redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

So, I should establish that a breed of dog is more common than the name of a space dog that wasn't even a Laika and had a different name originally? One would think that's self-evident. When people type in Mastiff, they're looking for a dog-breed, not a dog named Mastiff, even if the dog is famous. However, I won't revert anymore. --RossF18 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

(after four more ecs) If you'll stop reverting (and we're edit conflicting :)) we can try to sort this. Is your claim that google or some other search mechanism shows that Laika (the breed) is a more common search term than Laika (the dog), and that the redirect is going to a less common option? If so, can you establish that Laika the breed is a more common search option than Laika the dog, and then that can be sorted via the redirect or article naming. Also, it would be helpful if you would wait for User:Yomangan to weigh in here, in the event some articles need to be renamed-- he did the original work on the article, and may be able to answer your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my argument is that searching for Laika should bring up the breed not the dog named Laika as I would argue is convention on Wikipedia. Once the people reach Laika breed article, they could search the disambiguation page for a particular dog named Laika. Google search would not be a that good of a method to use here because the search "Laika" would in fact bring up any and all search terms remotely having to do with all types of "Laika," including the band and everything else on disbm page. The search for Laika the space dog would have to be more specific to narrow only those results and the Laika breed would have to be something like "Laika breed" to narrow just the breed. Also, while Yomangan is welcome to weigh in here, he/she is not the owner of the article and being the original editor of the article doesn't give his opinion any greater weight than mine. He doesn't need to "answer my concern" as he's not the sole editor or arbitror here. Edits are done by concensus, not by the original editor addressing concerns of all comers. The search for "Laika breed" yields 72,500 results on google. If you search for "Laika space" you get 683,000 results. All results are out of about 18,800,000 you get if you just searched for Laika to get all instances of the term. Lots of links for Laika space are for newspaper articles of the first dog in space. Interestingly enough, if you search for "laika dog," you get only 603,000 - less than "Laika space" which tells me that the word space might have more to do with it. As you can tell, if you just search for Laika, the first result is actually for a movie studio and the second and third result is the wikipedia breakdown of Laika and than Laika (dog breed) subarticle due to Laika being the main article as it stands now. It also depends on whether or not you type in laika with capital "L" or not. So, google is really a mismash of numbers and we need a better measurement than that. I again bring the point that Wikipedia should have the breed of the dog with the actual name Laika be the first in line and than the space dog should be a secondary article. Otherwise, we're again back to my original proposal that we include a link to the breed at the top of the Laika article (in addition or in place of the disambiguation link, which may remain on the Laika (breed) page). If you use this tool for counting hits on Wiki articles you can see that Laika breed gets many more hits than Laika disambiguation with Laika being of course the largest hit count with people just typing in Laika. We couldn't know how many people actually type in Laika looking for the space dog itself as opposed to the breed given that Laika the dog is the main article. But, if we can't agree on whether or not to move the article, at the very least, see my next note. --RossF18 (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, if we can't agree on which whould be the main article (which I really can care less about) I don't think including one additional line on the top point people to the breed is that much "clutter." Laika the dog and Laika the dog breed are the 2 main Laika articles so one should point to the other and merely having an additional line is not clattering anything up. --RossF18 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As Laika (the dog in space) was not a Laika (breed) what breed was he? Think this should be stated in the article--TimothyJacobson (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

She was a mutt. This line is in the article: Her true pedigree is unknown, although it is generally accepted that she was part husky or other Nordic breed, and possibly part terrier. Rnb (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

appr. laika

much love to laika good dog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Laika in Popular Culture

The Spanish Wikipedia article on Liaka has a section "Laika in Popular Culture" which deserves to be added to the English article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElCordobes123 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In general I'm wary of such sections as they often just end up containing useless crap. In some cases though a little bit of it may not be a bad thing. Actually I've been thinking about adding a mention somewhere that the Polish poet Zbigniew Herbert wrote a poem to honor Laika, "Naprzod pies" (makes a wonderful metaphor between Laika and guide dogs for the blind).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm also wary of such sections. It'd be cool to include stuff like famous poems to honor her, but then people come along and argue that they have just as much right to include every album and song that includes the name Laika, or a brief mention in the movie Hanna, or whatnot, and it just goes downhill quickly. Rnb (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree, there might be some totable stuff to add, but going that route you get swamped by Family guy references, and video games. Ceoil 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a related guideline on this in the manual of style, trivia sections, which is pretty clear that trivia sections (including the more specific "popular culture" form) are not a favoured format. Personally i hate trivia/popular culture sections because they inveitably do fill up with pretty irrelevant information. I would say, look at what trivia you wish to add and then consider how you can add it to the main article. If something is not currently worthy of putting in the main prose of the article one must consider whether it ever really could be. If not then that information shouldn't be placed in a trivia/popular culture section which should be treated more like a temporary holding cell until there's somewhere to put it. Such sections certainly shouldn't be an excuse for cruft. ChiZeroOne (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much why I haven't done it as it might create a slippery slope, even if a couple of the entries would be appropriate. Oh well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

A 'legacy' section may be worth considering, it has a better defined and more encyclopedic scope than a 'popular culture' section. The homages, such as the monument to Laika or the poem, could be mentioned there. Cenarium (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further, the last paragraph of the controversy section could be moved to the legacy section. Cenarium (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I do like the Legacy section idea and of merging controversy section into it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added one. Cenarium (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's pretty clear consensus here that trivia and popular culture sections are to be avoided; a legacy section will quickly become a trivia pop culture section, and this FA was crafted to avoid same. I've reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

While I give much deference to your understanding of FAs, legacy sections are really not the same as trivia pop culture sections (and were not discussed above before I suggested one). I agree that the later have a pretty poor track record, but legacy sections are from what I see generally well regarded and indeed are quite common in FAs (ex: Samuel Johnson, Malcom X, James Bowie). I've looked at the FAC and FAR for this article and there's been no discussion regarding trivia. Several commentators here have expressed that they wished to include relevant encyclopedic information but were wary of adding a pop culture section as it might 'degenerate', a legacy section seems like the best way to address this issue.

Moreover, the last paragraph of the controversy section simply doesn't fit there, and the last paragraph of the lead may actually not warrant inclusion in the lead, so this would provide for exactly what is needed to make this article complete and in accordance with the MOS on lead and section. While there is a potential for inviting trivia, this is not comparable with pop culture sections, and indeed I've noted that in articles with legacy sections, users tend rather to create a new pop culture section with trivia, which is liable to happen in any case, than adding trivia to the legacy section itself. Cenarium (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

do you still object ? Cenarium (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I found this image, browsing around for a fair-use image of the statue in Moscow, and thought we could add it... any opinions? --Travis Thurston+ 02:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it could be a good addition, though care would need to be taken with the caption. It's clearly not Laika's suit, as that one presumably disintegrated with the capsule. Perhaps with a caption such as "Soviet canine pressure suit"? --Noren (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the statue

No CC pictures of the statue? Really? Any of our friends in Russia want to take a snap and add it to Wikimedia commons? 188.220.25.70 (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) This monument is nearby of a kind of military research facility in Moscow, hence this may not be so easy to go there and just to take a snap ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.255.153 (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)