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

Sat Jan 15 07:13:24 UTC 2005

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.