[WikiEN-l] Re: minor issue, but still a npov warning

[Anthere]

Bryan Derksen a écrit:
> At 11:40 PM 1/14/2005 +0100, Anthere wrote:
> 
>> For european, this is a joint project but a european success.
>>
>> For american, according to what is implied by the article division, it 
>> is basically an american (and a bit european) success.
> 
> 
> I'm the one who created the original redirect from [[Huygens probe]] to 
> Cassini. Back when I did that, the Cassini article was located at 
> [[Cassini probe]] so that's where I redirected it to. Also, the article 
> itself was at the time just a mildly-modified version of material I had 
> copied directly from 
> http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1997-061A and 
> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/ - both of them NASA websites, so naturally 
> with an American perspective on things. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassini-Huygens&oldid=2550496 
> for those interested in seeing the article as it was at the time.
> 
> I'm also the one who split the Huygens section off into its own article 
> again a couple days back. Article size was the reason why I split it off 
> when I did, so that's why I put it in the edit summary. There are other 
> perfectly valid reasons to split the article, and if someone had split 
> it up based on those other reasons I'd expect those other reasons to be 
> in the edit summary instead. I don't see why it makes a difference, 
> since we both agree that it should be split.
> 
> I'm Canadian, BTW, which means I'm half European and half American but 
> will deny being either. :)
> 
>> Go on google, and look at "Cassini-Huygens landing site".
>> Look at results, Wikipedia IS there.
>>
>> now, look at "Huygens landing site"
>> Look at results, right, Wikipedia is not in the first page.
>> Only on the second, and only for Cassini.
> 
> 
> Google doesn't update its rankings instantaneously, so splitting the 
> article won't have an effect for a while yet. You could have split it 
> earlier if you wanted, I don't disagree with your reasoning and would 
> have supported it if I'd noticed you doing it back then

Yes, thank you for this comment. I am totally certain of your good 
faith, and as I said, the articles were great and the update yesterday 
amazing. This was good to see.

My comment does not want to lessen the quality, just to point out at how 
sometimes, naming issues are problematic.

(I would not really put Canada in Europe, but you are welcome among us :-))

Cheers

Ant