![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone has had a lot of fun making up non-existent adjectival forms for the small moons and asteroids, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia. We should be listing forms that people actually use. If anyone has ever used the word "Trinculonian" outside Wikipedia, I will eat my shoe. Sources please, or I will return with a flamethrower! Arsia Mons ( talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). if this isn't on Wiktionary, someone should copy it there. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 08:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Wavelength edited Earthly in the table to earthly. When I put earthly into the list I capitalized it to conform with the capitalization of Lunar, which indicated to me that entries in the list should all be capitalized whether they are routinely capitalized in ordinary writing or not. Either lunar should be written with a small initial letter or earthly should be capitalized to be consistent. Which should it be? -- Fartherred ( talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Earthican should be added as a demonym for Earth. It's what Earthlings are called in the year 3000, according to Futurama. I feel like that show is iconic enough to add a word to the lexicon. Tomjoad187 ( talk) 01:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
A very large number of these are words that are never actually used. Do we really need an article for these? Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, virtually everything in this article is someone taking names and converting them to adjectival forms on their own hook. That's original research. If there isn't a citable source for the adjective, it doesn't belong in the article. Also, the citations should be to use of the adjective in the context of the astronomical body. The reference for "Hydra (Pluto III)" being "Hydrian" dates from 1843. Hydra wasn't discovered until 2005. So this isn't a reference to anyone using "Hydrian" in the context of the moon Hydra. The whole article is full of things like that. Fcrary ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, you start off by saying this is OR because it's not OR, then go downhill with straw-man arguments about having every inflection in every language, which has nothing to do with this article, and then that RS's are OR, and then that the article shouldn't be about what its title says it is about. I think my head's going to burst. I didn't bother to read the rest. — kwami ( talk) 11:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Your first argument, that anything that isn't trivial is OR, means that WP needs to be deleted.
Your second argument has some merit as a POV issue. But note that our saying a word exists doesn't mean that people have to use it. Cynthian has been used for the moon, but that doesn't mean you'd ever see it if you didn't look for it. All we're saying is that the word exists, for people who might be interested in which words exist for these concepts. This isn't a style guide telling readers that they should use them.
Yes, there might be some irregularities, but they're going to be additional words, so that doesn't negate the established forms. E.g., "Venusian" was coined due to taboo-avoidance of "Venerian". But that doesn't mean "Venerean" can't be used as an adjective for the planet.
As for objecting to lists of adjectives/demonyms on principle, again, that would be a mass request. This is hardly the only such list. — kwami ( talk) 15:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone has had a lot of fun making up non-existent adjectival forms for the small moons and asteroids, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia. We should be listing forms that people actually use. If anyone has ever used the word "Trinculonian" outside Wikipedia, I will eat my shoe. Sources please, or I will return with a flamethrower! Arsia Mons ( talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). if this isn't on Wiktionary, someone should copy it there. 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 08:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Wavelength edited Earthly in the table to earthly. When I put earthly into the list I capitalized it to conform with the capitalization of Lunar, which indicated to me that entries in the list should all be capitalized whether they are routinely capitalized in ordinary writing or not. Either lunar should be written with a small initial letter or earthly should be capitalized to be consistent. Which should it be? -- Fartherred ( talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Earthican should be added as a demonym for Earth. It's what Earthlings are called in the year 3000, according to Futurama. I feel like that show is iconic enough to add a word to the lexicon. Tomjoad187 ( talk) 01:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
A very large number of these are words that are never actually used. Do we really need an article for these? Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, virtually everything in this article is someone taking names and converting them to adjectival forms on their own hook. That's original research. If there isn't a citable source for the adjective, it doesn't belong in the article. Also, the citations should be to use of the adjective in the context of the astronomical body. The reference for "Hydra (Pluto III)" being "Hydrian" dates from 1843. Hydra wasn't discovered until 2005. So this isn't a reference to anyone using "Hydrian" in the context of the moon Hydra. The whole article is full of things like that. Fcrary ( talk) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, you start off by saying this is OR because it's not OR, then go downhill with straw-man arguments about having every inflection in every language, which has nothing to do with this article, and then that RS's are OR, and then that the article shouldn't be about what its title says it is about. I think my head's going to burst. I didn't bother to read the rest. — kwami ( talk) 11:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Your first argument, that anything that isn't trivial is OR, means that WP needs to be deleted.
Your second argument has some merit as a POV issue. But note that our saying a word exists doesn't mean that people have to use it. Cynthian has been used for the moon, but that doesn't mean you'd ever see it if you didn't look for it. All we're saying is that the word exists, for people who might be interested in which words exist for these concepts. This isn't a style guide telling readers that they should use them.
Yes, there might be some irregularities, but they're going to be additional words, so that doesn't negate the established forms. E.g., "Venusian" was coined due to taboo-avoidance of "Venerian". But that doesn't mean "Venerean" can't be used as an adjective for the planet.
As for objecting to lists of adjectives/demonyms on principle, again, that would be a mass request. This is hardly the only such list. — kwami ( talk) 15:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)