Talk:Philophrosyne (moon)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jupiter LVIII. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505210146/http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08100/08116.html to http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/iauc/08100/08116.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL vs WP:PROMO
Hi. A few weeks ago there was an Irish IP editor who don't want a paragraph that attributed the names of the winners of the Jovian moon naming contest in the relevant pages such as Philophrosyne and Ersa so he proceed to yank it off on the grounds of WP:PROMO. The issue is he might have got it wrong on the understanding of Wikipedia's conventions though.

Here below is his latest reversion/removal of my attempt to restore it as it was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ersa_(moon)&diff=prev&oldid=979805161

First of all, despite the Irish's insistence that it is out-of-character for Wikipedia solely because of inclusion of Twitter handles and therefore 'must be removed from Wikipedia', Wikipedia is built on consensus rather than some die-hard rules like we found on Facebook or Twitter where as long as the rest of the editors deemed that an addition or more is encyclopedic enough and adheres to WP:COMMONSENSE in relation to the article, then it should be allowed to remain on the page no matter how "unconventional" or "weird" the edit looked though. We even have the infamous Ignore all rules provision that allows to circumvent some policies if it inhibits the improvement of Wikipedia rather than facilitate it.

The contest in question was held on Twitter-verse so it's inevitable that we'd have to cite their handles along with the names, some of which is too generic to comprehend (e.g. Victoria). The only alternative would be listing their Twitter numerical IDs as opposed to handles in which the former would stay the same even if the user in question change their handle, but that obviously constitute a violation of WP:NOR.

Per facts on the ground the particular edits made in August 2019 had been staying up for more than a year before this Irish guy found issue with it. This can be argued as a consensus in silent form.

Next, that edit is just nothing more than a standard attribution typical of that we did to most of astronomical articles with regards to who discovered it, and also who named it. The names and their handles after all are already mentioned by the International Astronomical Union in their official announcement regarding the christening of names so by itself it hardly looks like a standard run-of-the-mill promotional content.

In natural sciences field attribution is a must when doing research, be it PhD, Bachelors or whatever. Failure to do that would automatically earn the suspicion of dishonest practice or even straight-up plagiarism. This mentality extends to Wikipedia in relation to many broad and niche articles of its type and do not be surprised that it will one day be plastered with this template per WP:WEASEL if the Irish let this edit stand. This would be as tantamount as creating more problems than the start rather than fix it all.

Furthermore, WP:READER dictates that we edit for the readers rather than ourselves. My educated guess is that the large swaths of demographic visiting these kinds of pages would be either A. Astronomical professionals or B. Students.

In the case of former, like I said they would sense something isn't so right and either just put WP:WEASEL template or straightly restoring what he had removed altogether. As for students these would come for Wikipedia be it for pleasure of knowledge or for further research (if they know how to assess the References section) and they would definitely like these trivia tidbits a lot. According to Readers first, the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide useful articles for readers. If every tidbits of its kind is gone from Wikipedia people would lose interest quickly because they'd feel that it's as boring as a cardboard.

People go to Wikipedia to look for more information and his cursory conservative interpretation on WP:PROMO even to the point of yanking off WP:COPO compliant parts rather risks jeopardizes what Wikipedia is.

Lets get back to WP:PROMO. The Irish editor seems to miss that:

An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.

and

External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article.

The paragraph that we've disputed on doesn't have direct links to their Twitter profile, and by being mentioned by the International Astronomical Union they've already gained enough merit on their own warranting their encyclopedic inclusion.

Nonetheless I had once reduced the amount of Twitter handles per page to a tolerable 1-2 before the IP reverts it once again. By starting a conversation here I'm seeking his understanding on this matter and my point of view, and if it doesn't work as expected then at least a guidance from an expert in this subject matter is sufficient enough.

Finally I would like to also mention that WP:SNOWFLAKE is relevant in the context of this issue.

OrderOftheNerds (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that if a reliable independent source mentions the twitter handle, then we can include it. But we should not normally use twitter as a source, unless the tweeter is known to be reliable, eg a government agency or official outlet. In the case argued here, twitter is not the source, so nerds' inclusion looks OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I decided to look around Wikipedia for more cases like this, turns out from cars to mascots, mentioning the winner of the naming contest together with proper reference citation are pretty common. I'd want to wait for Nrco0e's input too but feel that it would be exhaustive for us because we all doesn't like to be sucked into wasting time pedantic disputes for too long. Therefore I had chosen to restore all the pages to a status quo antebellum state. I hope that the Irish guy can learn something or two from this lesson, especially regarding WP:IAR, WP:SNOWFLAKE and WP:READERSFIRST.--OrderOftheNerds (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again I also stand by my stance that if the Irish guy's conservative interpretation regarding Twitter handles on Wikipedia were to stand, it would open a can with lots of worms instead as by logical inference, pages such as Twitter suspensions can be ridiculously argued as a self-promotion farm or so and ending up with more problems from the start. I'll leave this up until the end of this week, after which I will try going to administrator's noticeboard to make a closure request and put this into a perfect rest.-OrderOftheNerds (talk) 10:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the subject of WP:PROMO, having users' Twitter handles briefly mentioned in the article does not necessarily count as promotion, especially when the relevant naming contest was held on that social media platform. The only offending issue brought up here is extraneous detail in the descriptions about these users. Take for example, Lunartic, who is one of the select few Twitter users acknowledged by the IAU and Carnegie Science's press release. The fact that two of his name suggestions were accepted by the IAU is both notable and relevant to the subject of Jupiter's moons, but any mention of detail centered around him (e.g. his YouTube video submission, "account dedicated to moons") is explicitly prohibited by WP:PROMO. If you want to see the epitome of (self)-promotion, see The Habitable Exoplanet Hunting Project by Caballero himself.
 * I've checked the articles of each of the five Jupiter moons and there are no lengthy or embellished descriptions like I mentioned above, although the only related issue I have is this following line in Philophrosyne (moon): "... where it is suggested by users including CHW3M Myth Experts (@Chw3mmyths) which is an 11th-grade history class studying Greek and Roman philosophy as of 2019 ..." All I have to say about this particular line is that it shouldn't be an WP:ASOF statement in my opinion. Besides that, if you're going to ensure neutrality for the descriptions of the acknowledged Twitter users, then they must be cited with the official press release by the IAU or Carnegie Institute.
 * I stand firm on my opinion that the previous revisions of the Jupiter moon articles should have remained. On another note, beware that 20 newly-discovered moons of Saturn will be getting their names from suggestions in a similar Twitter contest held back in 2019. While the IAU takes their time approving the names, this situation needs to be handled before the new names get announced anytime soon. N rco0e   (talk · contribs)   05:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I feel that if the WP:ASOF statement in Phylophrosyne article is yanked it would make the statement altogether looked out-of-date. But that's just my two cents of worth. I will be keeping this open until the end of this week to see if the Irish IP guy wants to say something or not, after which I'll go to the administrator's noticeboard and request a closure.OrderOftheNerds (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Include, per Graeme Bartlett's reasoning, which I won't reiterate, since this already has too much rambling in it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)