Talk:Gliese 581c/rename debate archive


 * 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. 

retracting move of Gliese 581 c.

Requested move
Gliese 581 c → Gliese 581c — Numeral catalogs normally do not have a space between the system and the object. See Extrasolar planets — Nuclear  Vacuum  20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose - "However, when the catalog has mostly numerals (i.e., PSR B1620-26c and HD 209458b), the space is often (astronomically) omitted, but often this is not done in the general public." - Once again you are misinterpreting things to get your way, and as usual it looks like sabotage and vandalism. This quote said for planets that are mostly numerical, and acnowledges that the general public does not use this format. It says nothing that the space has to be omitted. And certainly these plants are written everywhere on the internet with a space between the star number and the planet letter, Everywhere. You have not provided any referencing links to exterior examples for this concoction. You are try to flip this encyclopedia's astromomy articles upside down for some twisted reason, and not everyone sees it as just your editing. Thankfully all of your damage can be undone. And stop adding fantasy to this article with the sci-fi name Yasmir as though it has scientific significance - "unofficially named" is meaningless here when you are just promoting one person's insignificant work of fiction. 198.163.53.11 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed: The editor above says it best, the referencing used in the encyclopdia leaves a space in between the star and planet referencing. I makes no sense to change it for the odd ball out, the first odd planets that were miss-named. This guy must have written it incorrectly in his work of science fiction and so he/she wants to change the whole encyclopedia to coinside with his/her published error, the "Yamir" planet. Next he'll be naming each of them. 24.77.204.120 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose ...Great another "genius." What is it with all these guys that need express their own importance by changing the entire system. Listen man, this is not your personal play space: The nomenclature reference is very clear that it was just the first two pulsar planets that were named that way and that commonly the space is there. the editors above are correct, you are ignoring and contradicting your own references. You are going to have to change back all the other articles and redirections that you made because they are all wrong. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Please see Requested moves and search for "Gliese 581". I'll cross-post an extract here:

Gliese 581 c gives 1030 while Gliese 581c gives 1310 : -84user (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC) ]
 * I am not sure about this proposal. Google searches give mixed results for the last year:


 * I made the move today based on the fact that the main articles for Gliese 581b and Gliese 581d are titled as they are. I went for consistency withing the group. However, I had not looked at the edit histories on those pages—particularly the relatively recent moves. I'm going looking at the astronomy project to see what's been discussed there. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, consensus is best before you flip the encyclopedia's astromomy section on it's head. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think consensus will be reached here. All I see is two editors at odds with each other. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * NuclearVacuum has already moved the pages back. I've unwound the rest of my move by restoring the old edit history of Gliese 581c, including restoration of Talk:Gliese 581c. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me see if I can clarify this a little. According to this discussion, the main reason that the Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia has spaces is due to software limitations. It is because of this that most online sources have a space. However, proper sites (NASA, ESA, and SIMBAD to name a few) all place follow this "unwritten rule." The title of the article should be named by the astronomical community's writing (which is why I requested these to be moved). But some more than others (i.e. the OGLE requests) are never spaced. Also, I do not believe Google is a good reference to be making your claim, because Google holds not just news and facts, it holds speculation and fiction as well (not being a good way to search the science from the art). Please check it out.   —  Nuclear  Vacuum  01:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are saying ignore the refrencing that you started with (nomentclaure section), and ignore all the referencing of news articles that we will need in the future. You are not making any sense with that line of reasoning. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I give up! I can't take this anymore.  What do you want me to do now? —  Nuclear  Vacuum  03:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Listen, what you are doing was never necessary and a large burden in terms of changes. Put it back in each place where it had spaces, like "Gliese 581 c" both in the article titles/redirects and in the article's body. Please and thanks. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, Stop Using My Name. I am titled to privacy, and now you are just trying to annoy me. Unless you know me in real life, don't use my real name. Call me NuclearVacuum (or NV for short). Secondly, I will revert the planet names, but how will I know whether the space should or should not be used? — Nuclear  Vacuum  03:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)