Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
The data gathered by Cassini in her final flybys in October (E21) and December 2015 (E22) are expected to yield some clues regarding the chemistry of the moon's ocean and prospects for some form of biochemistry. The data may not be published until December 2016, it seems....
Cassini did a final flyby of Enceladus in late October that targeted the chemistry of the plumes directly. The INMS team, which includes Glein, is searching for molecular hydrogen in that plume, which would be chemical evidence of active serpentinization. An absence of molecular hydrogen would be a sign that the serpentinization is extinct. The data analysis from this flyby may be completed in time for the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in December. Glein added that the planned NASA mission to Europa includes advanced descendants of both the CDA and INMS instruments, meaning that in a decade or two, scientists can start to make these same measurements at Europa. This will allow us to better understand the importance of serpentinization across the Solar System.
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.
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.
– No clear primary topic for this name, the mythological giant gets about 1/5 the views of the moon daily probably a lower ratio when hits to the moon that continue on to the giant are factored in. This ratio is low as-is, but the giant also has longterm significance vastly exceeding the moon since the moon was named after the giant. These add up to make it so that no primary topic exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. The 5-to-1 page view ratio is large. It is dissimilar to cases like Triton (where, in contrast, the moon and mythological figure have roughly equal page views: ). Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that "the giant also has longterm significance vastly exceeding the moon", considering that Being the original source of the name is also not determinative of a primary topic (Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Primary topic). Indeed, if one wanted to debate about long-term significance, I would argue that it also favors Enceladus the moon. The moon is of great scholarly interest (and pop-sci interest too), as is immediately apparent on Google Scholar, while the giant is a mythological figure of minor interest (scholarly or popular). Astronomers frequently write papers (and book chapters, and even whole books) devoted to Enceladus the moon, while classicists scarcely devote such works to the giant. I think that says a lot about the relative "enduring notability and educational value" of the two topics. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
If people didn't think the giant was important, why (in space) would they ever name an entire moon after it? Your argument contradicts itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - View ratio very much supports this being the primary topic, as does a general search online to see what is meant when people search for the word Enceladus; it is overwhelmingly the moon they are referring to. Even if each view on the giant's page were a followthrough from this page, and we were to take away those views from this page, that still means that this page is over 4 times as viewed as the other topic. That shows an overwhelming interest in this article over the other, making this the clear primary topic with respect to usage. The giant having longterm significance does not create primacy by any means, as it was a very minor mythological figure even within its field, and the moon itself also has longterm significance and is much more significant in its field than the giant is in its own field. Merely being older does not matter. Per WP:DPT: "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative." As to Ravenpuff's comment on consistency with the other moons, Misplaced Pages policy, specifically WP:CONSIST, makes it clear that parenthetical disambiguation is not something that needs to be consistent between similar subjects. - Aoidh (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisters comment : There are arguments presented by opposes of the move and supporters agree with Nom, currently there is no consensus for either actions so I'm relisting for thorough consensus. >>> Extorc.talk07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The longterm significance criterion says otherwise. It is not a "minor consideration" in all cases. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:DPT, it is a very minor consideration, to the point that it means almost nothing in terms of determining primacy. "Being the original source of the name is also not determinative." An argument that rests on the idea that the moon being named after the giant creates primacy for the giant is directly and unambiguously contradicted by Misplaced Pages guidelines on the matter. - Aoidh (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Being "not determinative" only means that it is not enough, by itself, to determine primacy. It does not mean that it is a very minor consideration, to the point that it means almost nothing as you assert. Something being older than something else is a significant consideration in determining primacy. But an even more important consideration is "long term significance" which is much more than just one thing being older than another. In the example of Boston, Massachusetts and Boston, Lincolnshire, while the latter name is roughly 170 years older, the former has been more famous for over 200 years. Compare that with the Giant which is at least 2,500 years older than the moon, and probably only less famous since the last 30 years at most. Paul August☎14:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
"Something being older than something else is a significant consideration in determining primacy" is directly contradicted by WP:DPT: "historical age is not determinative." As for long-term significance, the giant does not have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". There is zero evidence presented for that claim in this move discussion other than the age and the fact that the moon is named after the giant, both of which are, by Misplaced Pages consensus, not determinative aspects of long-term significance. Outside of mentioning pageviews which are in the moon's favor from the outset, the nominator's only arguments are based on age and being a namesake. WP:DPT says neither are determinative factors. With that in mind, what exactly is the argument for inclusion? Because there's been no supporting argument outside of "per nom" which, per WP:DPT, is unconvincing at best. - Aoidh (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
To use an example listed on Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation as to why historical age and being named after something else does not create primacy, Anne Hathaway is the page for the actress, who is the primary topic, even though there is another Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare's wife) who is significantly older and was very well known. Also, the actress was even named after Shakespeare's wife, the same exact arguments being made here for the giant. Yet still, the primary topic is the actress for the reasons I listed above. Despite being recent, within our lifetimes, the actress is by far who is being referred to when someone says "Anne Hathaway". Similarly, and this is supported by checking online (I did a general Google search, Google Scholar, and JSTOR), if someone says the word Enceladus, they are overwhelmingly referring to the moon, to the point that outside of the one Misplaced Pages result for the giant, I didn't see a single reference to the giant within the first few pages of any engine I checked. In general English usage, the word Enceladus is by default, about the moon. That is primacy. - Aoidh (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
