Talk:Zond program

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Astronomy: Moon / Solar System Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Moon task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Spaceflight Mid‑importance

	Spaceflight portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soviet Union Start‑class High‑importance

	Soviet Union portal 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
Start	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.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Soyuz spacecraft#Reentry Module|descent modules]] Anchor Soyuz spacecraft#Reentry Module links to a specific web page: Reentry capsule. The anchor (#Reentry Module) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Comments[edit]

[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[edit]

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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zond program → Zond programme – I'm not quite sure what the preferred WP:ENGVAR is for Russian/Soviet subjects, but I do know that the vast majority, if not all, of the other Russan/Soviet space programme articles are at the "programme" spelling, so it's likely that these (Vega program and Zond program) should be moved to that spelling, I believe. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per MOS:RETAIN. As Russia is not an English speaking country, there is no "strong national ties" to any variety of English.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 05:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But is there not also an argument for consistency within a country's articles? As the other articles use "Programme". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, just move the other articles from "programme" to "program". --Enric Naval (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
It should also be noted that the navbox seems to favour programm.--ZooFamily (talk) 20:11, 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]

Sorry, it should have read "program" only one m, no e.--ZooFamily (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either "program" or "programme", just as long as all the articles from the same country use the same spelling! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 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]
- I'm sure the Russian space program/me would call bias on the US program being primary... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 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]
    - Biased if you do, biased if you don't, it seems. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:35, 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]
- Consistency within the same country's articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Given the comments above, I believe this might need to be discussed at the WikiProject level, perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 12 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. Graham 12:10, 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]

It has no strong ties one way or the other. So the standard should be the predominant useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not historically accurate, otherwise there would be no Space Race article. The two superpower space programs were highly coupled in Cold War politics to each other. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:28, 17 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[edit]

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[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Zond Assembly.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]