Talk:Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity

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)

---

Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity satellite → Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity – The disambiguator present in this article's title is malformed, and inappropriate given the complete lack of any other article which could cause ambiguity. Current title fails both common sense and WP:SPACENAME. --W. D. Graham 11:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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. Graham 18:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose the bare name when saying what it is is so easy and useful. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

The result of the proposal was moved to Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity. Those supporting the original proposal have the best of the policy-based arguments, especially WP:D. --BDD (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity satellite → Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (satellite) – Satellite isn't part of the name of the mission, in this manner is clear that the term was added to the real name for disambiguation --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC) Pippo skaio (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Original move request 2

Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity satellite → Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity – This move must be done to respect WP:SPACENAME and WP:PRECISION. Don't try to oppose with the argument of previous discussion ("it's simple to say") otherwise his relative mission in ESA's Living Planet Programme GOCE must be renamed "Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer ‎satellite" or the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager must be renamed adding "satellite" to specify it's a satellite. --Pippo skaio (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• 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. Graham 13:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

That isn't the page title's job. The lead section is the place to explain what something is, not the title. We haven't, for example, moved Neil Armstrong to Neil Armstrong the astronaut simply so readers can see what the subject is without reading the page. --W. D. Graham 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose. From their names, the Living Planet Programme is obviously a program(me) and the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager is obviously an imager. "Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity" is confusing and potentially ambiguous if "satellite" is not included in the name. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"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. Graham 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

What we have to do with Hipparcos? Isn't it ambiguous too? Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer is an explorer? Why don't add "satellite" to this titles? --Pippo skaio (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

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. Graham 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose. Current title does better in terms of reader experience. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
• 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. +mt 22:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Variation of move request 2

If the ambiguity of removing "satellite" is the main reason of the opposers to the move request we can vary the move to respect WP:SPACENAME and WP:PRECISION and have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS putting "satellite" between parenthesis (move request already varied) --Pippo skaio (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Doesn't fix the problem as the disambiguator is still unnecessary. The only compromise I would support would be SMOS (satellite) --W. D. Graham 14:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose. Current title does better in terms of reader experience. Andrewa (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion since November relisting

This section opened since I can make neither heads nor tails of the flow of previous discussion above and the proposed move target has been changed several times without noting that the existing discussion applied to a different proposal. The present proposal appears to be to move the article from the present title of Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity satellite to the new title of Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (satellite). 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506200325/http://ursi-f-2005.jrc.it/fullpapers/URSI-F-2005-Art_6.1.pdf to http://ursi-f-2005.jrc.it/fullpapers/URSI-F-2005-Art_6.1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302233049/http://www.esa.int/esaTQM/1220880349148_index_0.html to http://www.esa.int/esaTQM/1220880349148_index_0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126061131/http://www.eurockot.com/alist.asp?cnt=20040811&main=3&subm=97 to http://www.eurockot.com/alist.asp?cnt=20040811&main=3&subm=97

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)