Talk:1181 Lilith

Templates
I have removed a whole lot of templates from the page to avoid clutter, and I'm putting the requested move onto the talk page where it belongs. Note however that a source is needed before anybody will perform the move. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

moved. — Mets 501 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move: 1181 Lilit to 1181 Lilith

 * The correct name for this asteroid is "Lilith", which has many more google hits, and is the name listed at the Minor Planet Center, final arbiter of all names of minor planets.
 * Google "Lilit" 66 hits
 * Google "Lilith" 1,430 hits
 * MPC name list

Survey

 * Strongly oppose move with no explanation based on personal opinion with no evidence whatsoever, without a proper discussion page even as specified by WP:RM. Gene Nygaard 16:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Note 1) that the explanation above was not here when I added raised this objection, and 2) the Minor Planet Center and its website listing clearly are not "final arbiters" of this in any sense. Gene Nygaard 04:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gene, that's fine, but why are you still strongly opposing then? It's not as if you can't strike your vote. And final arbiters aside, do you have any reliable source that uses "Lilit" instead of "Lilith"? You're welcome to keep your strongly oppose vote, as ridiculous as it looks, but there's no need to keep arguing about how the initial proposal was malformed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support- The Minor Planet Center lists the name of this asteroid as "1181 Lilith" here. Although Michael Billington did not properly generate the move request and did not have proper background information, his request is appropriate. GeorgeJBendo 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Still oppose with no citation in article even now, and no real evidence that they are not just alternative names or that the "Lilith" is not the misspelling. Consider also usage such as this:  "Lilith number three (1181 Lilit) is a main belt asteroid discovered 11 February 1927".  Besides, if anybody really knows enough to give a definitive answer to that, there should be enough information for something more than a sub-stub. Gene Nygaard 18:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that I didn't request the move, I just put the template here where it belongs after taking it off the article. I'd assumed (wrongly it seems) that the page move request had been filled out by the user who added the template. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize to Michael Billington for the incorrect attribution. Thank you for working to fix the problem. GeorgeJBendo 12:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly support The Minor Planet Center is the official body dealing with names on asteroids and other minor planets. As a source that has much more weight than an angelfire page ! See also JPL/Nasa - http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=1181  and http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%221181+Lilith%22&word2=%221181+Lilit%22  Also the wikipedia pages on Benjamin Jekhowsky and Lilith (disambiguation) both include the 'h'. (Gene - are you saying that the page cannot be moved until someone spends time expanding it ?) -- Beardo 19:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, there was no mention of the Minor Planet Center in either the article or its talk page when this move is proposed. I'm saying that the proponents of a move ought to have a good reason for doing so.
 * Second—are you willing, based on that above-cited list at http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iau/lists/MPNames.html#J to go to bat for me when I go to WP:RM to nominate the article 7796 Jaracimrman for fixing in accordance with this Minor Planet Center list? Gene Nygaard 01:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And, could you please create this one listed there: 12323 Hackel? Gene Nygaard 02:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support correct name per MPC is Lilith. 132.205.93.148 20:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have asked the creator, Mrwuggs, to comment on the original article name. GeorgeJBendo 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that when push came to shove, you abandoned your claims above about the Minor Planet Center listing. Haven't seen hide nor hair of Beardo there either. Gene Nygaard 03:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support seems obvious. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I don't understand what the issue is here. I tried to find some support for the name "Lilit", and I could find nothing but typos. –RHolton ≡ – 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Lilit is a spelling mistake (or foreign usage). This issue should never have been brought to WP:RM. Abstain - I've no idea. The weight of web evidence appears to be in favour of Lilith though... SteveRwanda 10:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support; Lilith correct per Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, the International Astronomical Union's official reference on the matter, commissioned by the Minor Planet Center. Aquilina 10:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support; I'd go with Dictionary of Minor Planet Names. WilliamKF 22:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
[Question moved from User talk:Gene Nygaard to answer here because the move and reversion were made during the course of this discussion, having been done when only two of us had participated in the talk page discussion.] Hi there,

I'm a bit confused by your reversion of my move of 1181 Lilit - please look at the top of WP:RM - "What requested moves are not for: [...] Unobstructed, uncontroversial moves". The move of Lilit clearly falls into this category as it's a spelling mistake (and in case you don't believe me, a Google search of English results for 1181 Lilit reveals 167 matches while 1181 Lilith yields 12,400). Do you have some evidence that the other spelling is correct? IMHO WP:RM is backlogged enough without people's time being wasted voting on no-brainers. Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 09:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [above moved from my talk page] Gene Nygaard


 * Here's the real no-brainer:it is not an "uncontroversial move" when opposition has been expressed on the talk page at the time you make the move. Just look at the talk page history. Besides that,
 * You have the burden of proof ass-backwards. It's not up to me to provide evidence that the original spelling is correct.
 * Whoever requested the move had not made the slightest effort to meet his/her burden.
 * Even if it is arguable that someone reading the directions might not have taken it to WP:RM, the fact of the matter is that it was there and thus subject to normal requested move procedures,, and it was not uncontested.
 * Furthermore, those numbers you present here, something not in evidence in the discussion at the time, are not overwhelming given the unreliability of using search engines to attempt to make points on usage. In fact, they do provide good evidence that the "Lilit" spelling has been used while not providing reliable evidence as to how often and win what contexts each is used, so it then becomes a matter of balancing out two legitimate spellings to see which should get the one slot available for the name, in accordance with Naming conventions.
 * Give me one good reason why we should assume that this Russian (Polish)/French (Algerian) discover would not have used the "Lilit" spelling for this name, as it is in names such as Lilit Mkrtchian and Lilit Pipoyan. Or something that can be transliterated from Cyrillic letters or Arabic letters as Lilit.
 * Give me one good reason why we should assume a priori that the IAU not only assigns names to these objects, but specifies that people must spell them in letters not in their alphabets. Are Russians required to spell it "Lilith"?  Are Chinese required to spell it "Lilith"?  Are English speakers required to use letters outside their alphabet in 7796 Jaracimrman?
 * At the time of your move, the only evidence that had been offered in support of the move had been offered after my opposition, and it cited the online Minor Planet Center list as the authority.
 * Since then, many have attacked the credibility of that Minor Planet Center list in the RM discussion at Talk:7796 Járacimrman
 * So no, it certainly wasn't a no-brainer and wasn't uncontested when you made the move. It may be a little closer to that now, when WP:RM has nearly run its course.  Gene Nygaard 11:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I apologise for my actions then. The thing just looked a mess to me - an anon. user lodged an RM on what appeared to be an uncontroversial move, then someone else put a support on the WP:RM page itself. I don't know why I missed your oppose at that stage, and wouldn't have made the move had I seen it. I will even strike my vote since I don't know the truth here. It looks like the move is still going through based on other votes though, and I'd appreciate seeing your evidence that Lilit is actually correct... Cheers &mdash; SteveRwanda 13:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: Let's please keep the focus here on the current proposed page move. An out of process page move in the past is not relevant to this conversation, which is about where this page will reside in the future. –RHolton ≡ – 13:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - My comments on the Minor Planet Center list's entry for 7796 Járacimrman have been misinterpreted. I commented on that page that the Minor Planet Center may not have included the accent mark in the asteroid's name because of technical problems. I still trust the spelling in the Minor Planet Center's list, and I still trust their rendition of the name for 1181 Lilith. GeorgeJBendo 13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that's nothing but sheer, unfounded speculation on your part, and contrary to logic as I expressed there. If they aren't to be trusted, they just aren't to be trusted.  You didn't suggest any reason why the Russian/Algerian astronomer who discovered this planet wouldn't have used the Lilit spelling.  Gene Nygaard 13:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Gene, do you know of any reliable source that uses the Lilit spelling? If you are really concerned about this page's name, you're not demonstrating it well. So far, you seem more concerned about past process issues, or about other page name debates. I assume that you are familiar with WP:POINT. –RHolton ≡ – 14:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got the burden of proof backwards. Maybe if we had the information George requested from the original creator of this article as to why that spelling was used (perhaps it was just a typo), or if we had some information about who or what this asteroid was named after, or even if Steve hadn't found any Google hits, the problems would be solved.  Gene Nygaard 13:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though Mrwuggs doesn't appear to have been active since George asked him to comment here about why it was named this way, he seems to have moved his astrology interests to Lilith (hypothetical moon) before this discussion started. He probably wouldn't have a whole lot of credibility no matter what he might say. The only real question now may be whether the astrology stuff here should be replaced with a link there or just thrown out. Gene Nygaard 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.