| Revision as of 22:20, 18 December 2012 editApteva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits →Requested move← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:32, 18 December 2012 edit undoApteva (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,591 edits →Requested moveNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| *:::No one said it was. And no one said that nothing ever gets misspelled. Our job is to fix those misspellings when we find them, and find the most correct way of spelling them in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a work of fiction, even though some fixtion does appear now and then and needs to be fixed. Look if anyone wants to publish a book about 79360 Sila-Nunam, and spell it any way they want, they are welcome to use any punctuation they want, but we do not have that liberty. We have an obligation to make one of two and only two choices - the correct spelling and punctuation, or the spelling and punctuation that most people use. And we can argue about which to use, but those are our only two choices - none other - and an endash is not one of the two choices. so we have only one choice - a hyphen, and do not even need to be discussing this move - just move it to ]. ] (]) 07:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | *:::No one said it was. And no one said that nothing ever gets misspelled. Our job is to fix those misspellings when we find them, and find the most correct way of spelling them in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a work of fiction, even though some fixtion does appear now and then and needs to be fixed. Look if anyone wants to publish a book about 79360 Sila-Nunam, and spell it any way they want, they are welcome to use any punctuation they want, but we do not have that liberty. We have an obligation to make one of two and only two choices - the correct spelling and punctuation, or the spelling and punctuation that most people use. And we can argue about which to use, but those are our only two choices - none other - and an endash is not one of the two choices. so we have only one choice - a hyphen, and do not even need to be discussing this move - just move it to ]. ] (]) 07:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Oppose''' per WP dash style guidelines, the extensive discussions there, at AN/I, RFC/U, VPP, everywhere else, and now here. Best course forward would be the proposer to withdraw the proposal so we do not have to continue to rehash the rehash. -- ] (]) 12:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | *'''Oppose''' per WP dash style guidelines, the extensive discussions there, at AN/I, RFC/U, VPP, everywhere else, and now here. Best course forward would be the proposer to withdraw the proposal so we do not have to continue to rehash the rehash. -- ] (]) 12:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *:The discussion there appears to clearly be leading to ending this fiasco and moving this article to using a hyphen. Most editors agree that there are far more important things to work on than incorrectly moving articles that should use a hyphen to having them using an endash. ] (]) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:32, 18 December 2012
.jpg){kind=small} | Astronomy: Solar System NA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| Astronomy: Astronomical objects NA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Hello! Welcome to the talk page for (79360) 1997 CS29! Feel free to put notes on the talk page, and don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Feel free to also change the recent news to something else to.
To do list for (79360) 1997 CS29
Here is a to do list for (79360) 1997 CS29:
- Expand
- Add more info.
- This body now has an official name: Sila-Nunam MistySpock (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Recent news (about the article (79360) 1997 CS29)
A five-day discussion has been settled. The discussion was to find whether to merge the article S/2005 (79360) 1 with (79360) 1997 CS29. All the users wanted to merge that article with this article (only two users posted a note on its talk page). Now that article is merged with (79360) 1997 CS29. That article was what is now the section "Natural Satellite". Kamope 21:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Name
Is Sila-Nunam the name of the primary, with the secondary unnamed? Or is it the name of the system, perhaps Sila as the primary and Nunam as the secondary? — kwami (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't know. We can't treat it as the system name until it is confirmed to be that, though. --JorisvS (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed Sila = primary, Nunam = 2ary; in press. — kwami (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Requested move
 | It has been proposed in this section that 79360 Sila–Nunam/Archive 1 be renamed and moved to 79360 Sila-Nunam. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move |
79360 Sila–Nunam → 79360 Sila-Nunam –
Only hyphens are allowed in the names of minor planets, see Astronomical_naming_conventions#Minor_planets. Created in 2006 with a hyphen and moved last February with no discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Just to be accurate, the page history is:
- (79360) 1997 CS29 created by Lights at 13:06, 12 December 2006
- moved to (79360) Sila-Nunam (hyphen) by Ruslik0 (a m:Steward) at 13:22, 12 January 2012 named
- moved to 79360 Sila-Nunam (hyphen) by Ruslik0 at 18:36, 12 January 2012 (naming convention)
- moved to 79360 Sila–Nunam (en dash) by Kwamikagami (kwami) at 02:31, 11 February 2012
Now if a steward on their home wiki thinks the naming convention calls for a hyphen who are we to disagree? --Apteva (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
- Oppose. This is not a single body, Sila-Nunam, but two, Sila and Nunam. A dash is appropriate. It was created with a hyphen when that info was unavailable. — kwami (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Likewise. The title is as it should be. --JorisvS (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose—The naming conventions article linked to in the nomination doesn't really support the claim being made here. But even if it did—or there was a more explicit prohibition somewhere against dashes—I still don't think it would matter much. This is a matter of style, and Misplaced Pages's style is to use a dash here, as I understand it. We don't need to follow specialist sources on style when it conflicts with the projects' broader style. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. The naming authority for such objects, the IAU, does not use endashes, they use slashes, spaces, and hyphens. A review of google gives 79360 Sila-Nunam (with a hyphen) as the most common name. Apteva (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Many people make no distinction between hyphens and endashes, so I don't find that surprising. Rothorpe (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- However, this is a case where anyone who does know the difference would use the correct punctuation - a hyphen. I was looking for google scholar articles that used an endash for Michelson-Morley experiment, and the only one I found used endashes throughout the article - for everything except minus signs, which were minus signs (every place a hyphen would correctly appear, they used an endash). Apteva (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Google Scholar usually hyphenates Michelson–Morley (which may or may not mean they prefer hyphens to dashes). But I couldn't verify your second sentence. Instead of finding such an example with too many dashes, I easily found (without going through any of the paywalls) which use hyphens in the places a Manual of Style partisan would expect. Art LaPella (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The first one is the same one that I found - I did not check the first 500 like I usually might - but only the first twenty. What you are looking at is the edited summary which changes the endashes to hyphens. Here is the paper. The second one, or at least a draft, is here, and uses hyphens and minus signs. The third one uses hyphens. The fourth one uses hyphens, as does the fifth. It can be argued that these are "drafts", without the benefit of editing for punctuation. It is possible that someone with a subscription can tell us what punctuation the edited published papers used, but I do not see it as important. Of the first 20 results only one used an endash for Michelson-Morley experiment, even though doing so is arguably pedantically correct. Apteva (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your last post is essentially right (more exactly, the first one hyphenates normally at the end of a line, and the fourth one uses minus signs to mean "or" on page 11.) Art LaPella (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Many books do not use a hyphen for end of line hyphenation, but instead use a "soft hyphen", which is shorter than a normal hyphen, and that is what is in that paper - try copy and pasting it and there is nothing visible there - it is just put there to look like a hyphen. Apteva (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your last post is essentially right (more exactly, the first one hyphenates normally at the end of a line, and the fourth one uses minus signs to mean "or" on page 11.) Art LaPella (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The first one is the same one that I found - I did not check the first 500 like I usually might - but only the first twenty. What you are looking at is the edited summary which changes the endashes to hyphens. Here is the paper. The second one, or at least a draft, is here, and uses hyphens and minus signs. The third one uses hyphens. The fourth one uses hyphens, as does the fifth. It can be argued that these are "drafts", without the benefit of editing for punctuation. It is possible that someone with a subscription can tell us what punctuation the edited published papers used, but I do not see it as important. Of the first 20 results only one used an endash for Michelson-Morley experiment, even though doing so is arguably pedantically correct. Apteva (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that Google Scholar usually hyphenates Michelson–Morley (which may or may not mean they prefer hyphens to dashes). But I couldn't verify your second sentence. Instead of finding such an example with too many dashes, I easily found (without going through any of the paywalls) which use hyphens in the places a Manual of Style partisan would expect. Art LaPella (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- However, this is a case where anyone who does know the difference would use the correct punctuation - a hyphen. I was looking for google scholar articles that used an endash for Michelson-Morley experiment, and the only one I found used endashes throughout the article - for everything except minus signs, which were minus signs (every place a hyphen would correctly appear, they used an endash). Apteva (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Many people make no distinction between hyphens and endashes, so I don't find that surprising. Rothorpe (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose – WP style not only allows, but encourages, the en dash in such a context; per MOS:NDASH: "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between. Here the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal, oppositional, or at least involving separate or independent elements. The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech. Often if the components are reversed there would be little change of meaning." A perfect fit to the two nearly equal parallel components in a gravitational embrace. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Does not apply to proper nouns. By definition they are names and names are spelled as they are, without changing characters within them, including the punctuation. Apteva (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not the definition of a proper noun. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- No one said it was. And no one said that nothing ever gets misspelled. Our job is to fix those misspellings when we find them, and find the most correct way of spelling them in wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a work of fiction, even though some fixtion does appear now and then and needs to be fixed. Look if anyone wants to publish a book about 79360 Sila-Nunam, and spell it any way they want, they are welcome to use any punctuation they want, but we do not have that liberty. We have an obligation to make one of two and only two choices - the correct spelling and punctuation, or the spelling and punctuation that most people use. And we can argue about which to use, but those are our only two choices - none other - and an endash is not one of the two choices. so we have only one choice - a hyphen, and do not even need to be discussing this move - just move it to 79360 Sila-Nunam. Apteva (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not the definition of a proper noun. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Does not apply to proper nouns. By definition they are names and names are spelled as they are, without changing characters within them, including the punctuation. Apteva (talk) 06:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP dash style guidelines, the extensive discussions there, at AN/I, RFC/U, VPP, everywhere else, and now here. Best course forward would be the proposer to withdraw the proposal so we do not have to continue to rehash the rehash. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion there appears to clearly be leading to ending this fiasco and moving this article to using a hyphen. Most editors agree that there are far more important things to work on than incorrectly moving articles that should use a hyphen to having them using an endash. Apteva (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- NA-Class Astronomy pages
- NA-importance Astronomy pages
- NA-Class Astronomy articles of NA-importance
- NA-Class Solar System pages
- NA-importance Solar System pages
- Solar System task force
- NA-Class Astronomical objects pages
- Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics