User talk:Fxmastermind/super galaxy fiasco

Index
I'm going to try and put all the commentary in one place. This user talk that wikipedia uses it unbearable.

If you found this somehow, it is some sort of archive page. FX (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

>

simple term
This is a simple, almost self explanatory term. 45,000 references on Google. How much time and attention does it deserve? FX (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs redirect
for supergalaxyFX (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Added redirect for Supergalaxy. FX (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe how little effort some people put into research, and the great amount of effort they put into trying to delete articles. Amazing.

FX (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

improper naming
This is wikipedia, it should be super galaxy, not Super Galaxy, according to wikipedia naming conventions. 70.51.8.167 (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you call it giant galaxy? 70.51.8.167 (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no such term used anywhere
I'm getting more and more laughs over some of the user comments on the deletion page, wherever that is.

I think the misunderstanding is extremely absurd. Somehow, I don't know how, but somehow, there seems to be this belief, exemplified by the previous question, that I made up the term Super galaxy. Despite the abundant sources, all of which use the term, and the web links, which all use the term, and the other Wikipages that use the term ... well ... if you can't see the problem, what can anyone say?

I think I understand the critics of WIKIPEDIA at last. While we can see a vast and detailed page on anal fisting, the humble term super galaxy, which appears in the title of two Publications, in leading Astronomical Journals, is considered fair game?

It isn't a disagreement over the meaning, it is an effort to wipe the term from the site.

I pointed out that the term appears in other WIKIPEDIA articles, on the deletion talk page, but nobody responded. Instead I find a slew of tags, none of which have any evidence to back them up. Nor has anyone done anything to improve the page.

Is this normal behavior? FX (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be a valid point
Where can one find the wikipedia naming conventions?FX (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the subtle irony, that is becoming more abundant, wikipedia naming conventions leads to a page that was deleted, rather than a redirect to whatever obscure reference page the information resides on.FX (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Super Galaxy
'Super Galaxy' is not an established term in astronomy and has no well-defined meaning. For example, while the popular news articles linked in the article agree with - and appear to be the source of - the definition given (a large galaxy), the peer-reviewed papers - which were added recently - are mostly old works and use the term in a completely different context (as a description of large-scale structure in the local universe, outside of our Galaxy). Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today. Cosmo0 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —Cosmo0 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   —Cosmo0 (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's say you are correct, and the term "super galaxy" is not an established term, or it is a term that has changed meaning over time. Rather than delete the article, that information could be added to the page, increasing the amount of information available through wikipedia. Of course this places the burden on you, because now you have to provide sources to support your claim, that "Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today."

If you can support that claim, (it may be true, I don't know), then that information is added to the article. If the term "super galaxy" has no well defined meaning, as you say, then that information is added to the article.

So now, rather than the simple "lets delete something", we have an article that informs the curious reader that this phrase has been used in various ways, that the meaning seems to have changed over time, and that currently it is not clear what it means.

That is called knowledge, where rather than finding "no entry", somebody looking up "super galaxy" finds information, not a blank page.

Then there is the other issue, that "super galaxy" is currently being used as shorthand, to describe the C-5M Super Galaxy - the US Air Force's leading cargo aircraft.

Which I was aware of when I created the page. I don't know how to make one of those multiple meaning pages.

But by all means, I understand how easy it is to delete stuff. It takes effort to create and edit entries. Deleting is quick and easy.

But reality is decided by consensus, so I'm sure that the wikiality of the issue will win out. (insert laugh emoticon here, so everybody knows I am joking)

I've never watched a deletion discussion before. How long can you wait before you push the delete button? Is there a hurry? Is this an important issue? Where are the rules regarding such a pressing issue? Thanks. FX (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article as it currently exists does little more than provide a definition of the term, and several sources of information that provide mention of the term in passing.  If there is something out there that can better explain the theory here, I'd be compelled to change my mind, but with items in passing and off-hand remarks about super galaxies, there's not much to work on.  FX, your arguments are compelling, but you really need to provide more info and flesh the article out if it is going to stand a chance, rather than packing the AfD here full of discussion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:OR is not a reason to keep --T-rex 23:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the usage in the article does not match most of the references. Most of the references refer to galaxy clusters and super clusters. The "super galaxy cluster" refers to a galaxy supercluster, which is an entirely different term, and which "super" is prefixed to "galaxy cluster", and NOT where "cluster" is addended to "super galaxy", so is etymologically wrong. The elliptical super galaxy is more commonly referred to as a giant galaxy or giant elliptical, which is of a type gE, cD or D. An argument can be made to have a redirect to the C-5 variant, after deletion. 70.51.8.167 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

FX's very long comment

 * Arguments?

"FX, your arguments are compelling, but you really need to provide more info and flesh the article out if it is going to stand a chance"

I was unaware that argument and debate were required for articles in WIKIPEDIA. I also read that one should leave things unfinished, so that others could take part in creating and editing articles. The thought that people who know nothing about a subject, who won't read sources, or do any research, should have a say in creating an article, or worse, in trying to delete it, is hilarious.

It is one of the things people who make fun of WIKIPEDIA point out. That reality should be decided by a vote, rather than science, research, and evidence.

The criteria for an article is verifiability, evidence, good sources, published articles, credible information, yadda yadda yadda

If this is so, then the criteria for deleting an article should be far higher. Right?

"The article as it currently exists does little more than provide a definition of the term, and several sources of information that provide mention of the term in passing."

True. It is the start of an article. I had hoped there were other people interested in astronomy, who might add to the page. Of course this may take some time. And effort. To find people wanting to delete the page, to argue the term "super galaxy" doesn't exist, is so absurd I think it must be a prank.

Nobody can be that petty, that small minded and ignorant. It must be a joke, somebody is bored, looking for a little fun. I find it funny in the extreme.

Of course, if it isn't a joke, (say it is, please), then the massive amount of evidence and the history of the term must be presented.

And yet, if this isn't a joke, and people who know nothing about a subject have the power to not just vandalize a page, but delete it entirely, then why bother? That would make WIKIPEDIA a joke, and not worth bothering with.

And all the references to super galaxies that already exist will have to be purged.

Like - Then there are super galaxy clusters which are hundreds of galaxies merged together due to cosmic collisions. from this page, episode 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episode_list_of_The_Universe_%28TV_series%29#Season_Two_Episodes

And "The nuclei of the two galaxies are joining to become one Super Galaxy." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antennae_galaxies

I could go on and on. Then there are the print articles I linked to on the page, which show some of the history of the term. Including the award given to de Vaucouleurs, who was published in The Astronomical Journal, 1953, for his theory and discovery 20 years before anyone else. (This information is in the references provided)

Or the theory by Shapely, The Super Galaxy Hypothesis (1930) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1930HarCi.350....1S

The term is used in Applied Mathematics and Computation Volume 139, Issue 1, 1 July 2003, Pages 23-36 By E.E Escultura, in his article The flux theory of gravitation XVIII: macro and quantum gravity, cosmo waves and applications

It is used here Deconvolution in High-Energy Astrophysics: Science, Instrumentation, and Methods (2004)

The bright blue spot in the center of the image is due to X-ray emission from hot gas falling into a giant black hole at the center of the super galaxy, Perseus A. http://ba.stat.cmu.edu/journal/2006/vol01/issue02/issue02.pdf#page=2

I could go on and on of course.

The term is used by NASA, in Science, in Nature, in Astronomy, etc etc

examples:

measurable structure arisingfrom the local supergalaxy. .... of the local supergalaxy it is expected that the background increases by an ... http://nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670029045_1967029045.pdf

The role of galaxy destruction by merging, leading to a new supergalaxy, has been underappreciated until recently. http://gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A4.html

Title: The local supergalaxy as the structured aspect of a universal background of ... Abstract: Local supergalaxy as structured aspect of X-ray background ... http://rst.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=505925&id=4&qs=N%3D4294936922%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%7C1

hypothetical Local supergalaxy. In the field of the theory of cosmic ray ..... Local supergalaxy. A. http://rst.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19670024503_1967024503.pdf

"local supergalaxy" is likely. to. be anisotropic in X-rays as well... http://rst.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19780013097_1978013097.pdf

They even have a picture of one here:

This X-ray image shows a central radiating mass (an elliptical supergalaxy that resulted from merger of multiple galaxies) and a huge cloud of glowing hot gas that is interpreted as under direct control by this Dark Matter, which is estimated to be equivalent to a hundred trillion times the mass of the Sun. http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/A9.html

But does it matter? If somebody with no knowledge of something can delete it, what is the point? Just delete anything you don't understand, or know anything about. Let me know how that works out for you.

Now if you just want more information, a longer article, more references, that is another story. What is it you want?

And in what Universe do imagine reality is decided by vote?

Don't worry, the laugh this gave me means it is all good.FX (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * one more thing

If you really want a better article, putting something on the delete list is about as bad a way to go about getting one, that you could possibly come up with. No kidding. I can show you a hundred articles that have false information, no sources, or terrible writing. None of them are on the deletion list.

I'm not sure if it appears anywhere on WIKIPEDIA guidelines or suggestion, but it should. Assume good will

If you don't know what that means, I feel sorry for you. It comes from the well, and it is important.FX (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Note of interest
Added more references and information to article. FX (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't much of a discussion when nobody responds to the points raised. I did note some high level vandalism of the page in question. What do these sort of wikiality discussions get, in user participation? 4 or 5 votes?

Where is the voting system? Is it a secret ballot? How are the votes verified?

This is a game, right? You can't be serious. FX (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "super galaxy"
Let's say you are correct, and the term "super galaxy" is not an established term, or it is a term that has changed meaning over time. Rather than delete the article, that information could be added to the page, increasing the amount of information available through wikipedia. Of course this places the burden on you, because now you have to provide sources to support your claim, that "Neither definition is widely used in astronomy today."

If you can support that claim, (it may be true, I don't know), then that information is added to the article. If the term "super galaxy" has no well defined meaning, as you say, then that information is added to the article.

So now, rather than the simple "lets delete something", we have an article that informs the curious reader that this phrase has been used in various ways, that the meaning seems to have changed over time, and that currently it is not clear what it means.

That is called knowledge, where rather than finding "no entry", somebody looking up "super galaxy" finds information, not a blank page.

Then there is the other issue, that "super galaxy" is currently being used as shorthand, to describe the C-5M Super Galaxy - the US Air Force's leading cargo aircraft.

Which I was aware of when I created the page. I don't know how to make one of those multiple meaning pages.

But by all means, I understand how easy it is to delete stuff. It takes effort to create and edit entries. Deleting is quick and easy.

But reality is decided by consensus, so I'm sure that the wikiality of the issue will win out. (insert laugh emoticon here, so everybody knows I am joking)

I've never watched a deletion discussion before. How long can you wait before you push the delete button? Is there a hurry? Is this an important issue? Where are the rules regarding such a pressing issue? Thanks. FX (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your technical question first:
 * the deletion debate should take no more than 5 days, but it can be shorter if an early concensus is reached
 * to disambiguate the meaning, you can use the template at the top of the page to give 'This page is about USE1. For USE2, see PAGE2.', or  to give simply 'For USE2, see PAGE2.' (see e.g. Edwin Hubble).  You can also create a disambiguation page, but it's probably not worth it for just 2 articles.


 * Regarding the article itself, I don't agree that Super Galaxy is a term whose meaning has changed over time. In fact, it has only really had one meaning in the scientific literature (the one referred to in the papers you cite, which I admit I didn't know/had forgotten about) and, as far as I can see, it's just an obsolete term for the Supergalactic plane.  Other than that, it's just people tacking the prefix 'super-' onto 'galaxy' to imply large, as you can do with any noun.  And no - bad information is not better than no information.  If people come to Wikipedia looking for Super Galaxy and find nothing they'll realize that there's no such term.  Either that or they'll start a new article and the fun begins all over again!


 * In any case, the proper way to solve this now is through the debate. We've both made our arguments, so let's just wait out the result.  Hopefully no hard feelings either way.  Cosmo0 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Debate?
What debate? I didn't know debates had a place in wikipedia. Notable, verifiable, NPOV, where does debate come in?

At the risk of spreading out the conversation, if a free online encyclopedia doesn't have an entry for a term used by astronomers, news reports, and published articles, why would you think that means the term doesn't exist?

There is no entry for Quail Bronchitis Virus. Do you really think that means the QB virus doesn't exist? That is just silly. Especially considering that virus is the centerpiece of some very important research. FX (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)