Talk:Sputnik (disambiguation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 


Good grief, folks! Can I have five minutes to develop a page and update the related pages to reflect that there are three Sputniks to disambiguate, rather than two? Speedy deletion is an understatement! DanielM 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

JHJ, why are you so concerned to hide away the list of Sputniks and the bridge term under a "see also"? These are surely just as much likely search targets as the others - and the list particularly so, since Sputnik as a generic term for Russian spacecraft (for which the list is effectively the article) is likely the second meaning that people are likely to be interested in. --Kotniski (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

K, thank you for discussing, per WP:BRD. Why are you so concerned with demoting the actually ambiguous entries underneath the only-related list of non-ambiguous Sputniks? "These are surely" isn't as obviously true as you assume, since there is a primary topic, Sputnik. If any others from that list are actually ambiguous with "Sputnik", they should be copied here, but the list goes after the things that are actually ambiguous. (And the list might be better linked from that primary article.) Is the bridge term ever referred to as "a Sputnik" as opposed to "a Sputnik double"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Re the bridge term, I think it's likely to be referred to as just Sputnik just as much as many of the other items on the list ("What was your partner's double of 1 spade?" "Sputnik.") But as to the list, as I say, it's not the items from the list that would necessarily be known as Sputnik, but the general concept of a Russian satellite called Sputnik (we used to have Sputnik program, but it was decided that it wasn't really a program, so it was replaced by this list). This important meaning, though not judged to be the primary one, should not be hidden away at the bottom of the page, and the most natural place to put it seems to be right after the reference to Sputnik 1, the first of the series. If it would make you any happier we could make a redirect to the list, Sputnik (designation for Russian spacecraft), and make that the first item under "may refer to". Though it still seems to me that things will be made clearer to the reader if we do it like I had it before, deviating slightly from the normal MOSDAB format. --Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The article on the general concept of the program shouldn't be titled "List of...", so perhaps the move was in error. But restored using the better concept-titled redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
The point is that there was no Sputnik "program", so that redirect is even worse. (I still think the most transparent solution is to simply give the title of the "list" page.)--Kotniski (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It should be a list article or a general concept article. If it's a list article, then the list entries that are ambiguous should be duplicated here. If it's a general concept article, its title should reflect that. Those are the most transparent solutions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
It serves as both. You seem to be on one of your pious battles to make things as difficult as possible for readers to find what they might be looking for. I give up.--Kotniski (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You seem to overestimate the difficulties in finding things on this page, and to be on a mission to assume bad faith. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I share Kotniski's sentiment, and no, lest you are wondering, I do not assume bad faith on your part (and I'm sure neither does Kotniski). I do, however, believe that mindless adherence to technical aspects of the disambiguation guidelines with no room for deviation even when it demonstrably makes sense is never a productive course of action, yet this is what you, J, are doing most of the time when you pop up on my watch list. Perhaps if you continue to hear this often enough from all kinds of different people on all kinds of occasions you may eventually soften your rigidity, but somehow I'm not holding my breath. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 19, 2011; 15:16 (UTC)
For the record, calling it mindless is assuming bad faith. No sense has been demonstrated here in not using the guidelines. Usually when you, E, pop up on my watchlist, it is because most of the time you're ignoring the guidelines with that same lack of demonstration or consideration. Perhaps if it's repaired often enough, you might start using the guidelines more, but I'm not holding my breath. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's being suggested that we should ignore the guidelines; but even the guidelines themselves explicitly permit us to tweak their recommendations where necessary in order to make the end product serve its purpose (helping readers to find what they're looking for) better. We shouldn't be entirely rule-led.--Kotniski (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I couldn't have said it better myself. You, J, should also cut your use of bad faith accusations when people disagree with you on things you (obviously) are very passionate about. It ain't that good of an argument, it paints you in a not-so-flattering light, and it sends the wrong message about your own motives.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 19, 2011; 17:15 (UTC)
But there's no consensus that not using the guidelines here would help the readers better. E, your lack of specific example of my assumption of bad faith ain't that good of an argument, but since I haven't assumed bad faith, I can understand why it's necessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
So why do you not think that making it clear that we have a list of the other Sputnik spacecraft would help readers? This reminds me of your behaviour on dab pages which include surnames, where you've tried to hide away the people who have the dab term as the surname, and even (not sure if this was you or someone else) tried to suppress the information that the "Xxx (surname)" link also contains a list of people with that surname (which is more or less analogous to the situation we have here). All we hear in these situations is quotes from the guidelines, even in the face of people arguing specifically as to how readers will be best served if we do it slightly differently.--Kotniski (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
It should remind you of my applications of the consensus style on surnames, yes. And no, it wasn't me removing the "including list of" from the description. All I hear is "ignore the rules here" without any specific reason beyond "I think it's better!". In this case, putting a link to the list of other spacecraft in the Sputnik series (but spacecraft that are not each ambiguous with "Sputnik") would be made clear by including a link to the list in the "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Where few people will look, given that we're starting off talking about the satellites at the top of the page. I really have given specific reasons; and not said ignore the rules, just tweak them a tiny bit (I don't even know that the rules are so strict as to forbid what I want to do). If it turns out you don't object to saying "includes list of..." when referring to surname pages, why will you not accept the same thing here? Just mention, for those (presumably the majority) who won't know or guess, that this "spacecraft designation" page includes the list that many of them will be looking for? What problem do you have with that? I don't think it's even against the letter of the rules, let alone the spirit. --Kotniski (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Where few people may need to look, if the entries are not ambiguous and the readers have already been to Sputnik before reaching here, yes. The reasons given can be handled within the guidelines, and paralleling the surname reason: either the article is about something that is ambiguous (and in this case possibly mis-titled, but regardless has a redirect that reflects that ambiguity, which should be used) and is just another entry in the list of ambiguous-title topics; or it's a list of related things that should go in the "See also" section, while any list entries that are ambiguous get copied into the dab list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
You still seem oblivious to the fact that readers are likely to be looking for stuff without necessarily following your black-and-white distinction between titles that "are ambiguous" and those that are "only related". Once we've agreed to have an item in the list Sputnik (spacecraft designation), why oh why can't we add a description to that item that tells people that this cryptic link leads them to a list of other Sputniks? Your insistence on either suppressing that information or hiding it down the bottom of the dab page seems to have no purpose except to punish readers for not thinking about ambiguous topics in the way you would like them to. (And since you claim you aren't opposed to writing "also includes a list of people who have the surname" in those cases, why would you want to suppress the information about the list in this case, which is exactly analogous?)--Kotniski (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Judging by the lack of response, I believe you've stumped J with common sense :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2011; 12:44 (UTC)
I believe you believe that. There are other explanations possible. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Even if it is so, I see they are not coming from you. Which brings me back to my original assessment.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2011; 13:45 (UTC)
Your original incorrect assessment. You are welcome to it. You misconstrue the discussion page as a battlefield and misassign obligations to the participants, so it is no surprise that you misunderstand the results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Including so much evidence to back that statement up was really nice of you; I'm now convinced.
Oh, wait...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 26, 2011; 13:26 (UTC)