![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I say "NAY!". It is where it belongs, and it should stay there. I think User:Skysmith would agree with me, if one looks at the history of the Amaterasu article, as they used it first.
And even if it weren't a mythological technicality, it is usually referred to as the "the Sun" anyway, making User:DreamGuy's argument moot.
elvenscout742 29 June 2005 07:30 (UTC)
Missing Sun is the name of the myth, therefore both Missing and Sun should be capitalized. What is your problem with this Dreamguy? Please discuss here instead of leaving rude comments in the history entries.-- AI 19:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, please read the first paragraph of this article before changing Missing Sun myth again. elvenscout742 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
It occurred to me that my change calling this a motif was something that shouldn't just be in the lead sentence but in the title. "Missing sun myth" is a misnomer, as a myth is a discrete story while motifs are themes in stories. An article talking about how many myths feature missing suns is discussing a motif, not a myth. It would also be somewhat accurate to have called it missing sun myths but Wikipedia policy doesn't like plurals.
Now between this explanation, the rules for capitalization in general (as shown at Wikipedia:Capitalization), and also the very specifical example on that page showing that sun should be lowercase unless used in astronomy, hopefully there will be no more pointless bickering and trying to get it back to a version that was incorrect in several ways. DreamGuy 19:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it is correct to capitalise Sun in this case, and correct to call it a motif rather than a myth. So, perhaps you could split the difference and go with that? Failing that, why in the world hasn't this dispute been referred to an RFC? — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The article should be moved back to it's original file name. Dreamguy moved the article against the consensus of current contributors and others watching this dispute. -- AI 23:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You see, the flaw in your argument is that he moved it back to its original filename. It is the ones who moved it away that have to establish a consensus for the move, when it is clearly disputed. I do not see a consensus amongst the wikipedia community for the move. ~~~~ 01:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page pending the completion of the VfD. You people really need to stop edit warring over this issue. Kelly Martin 05:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have closed the VfD in question and am about to unprotect the article page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
This is probably one of the lamest edit wars ever to hit this encyclopedia, so I decided to add a template and a little taste of the dispute in the first sentence. A little compromise would do everyone here a little good, and besides, Sun is almost always capitalized, and since this is an article, Myth should be capitalized as well. Anyone who has a problem with this really needs to go back to the third grade! I won't move the page though, but I recommend that the dispute in question be resolved as quickly as possible. Also, the notion that a slight fluctuation in capitalization would distort the ability of other users to access this article is moot. Take care, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 15:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1) Sun should be lowercase, as clearly and undeniably shown on Wikipedia:Capitalization in the Celestial bodies section: "The words sun, earth, and moon are proper nouns when used in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere: so "The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2"; but "It was a lovely day and the sun was warm". A few people have tried to claim that this article is about astronomy and so it should be capitalized, but that argument is clearly false as this is about mythology and other articles do not capitalize sun except for strictly astronomical ones, where there may be confusion between which sun you are talking about. There is no confusion here.
2) " Motif" means "any recurring element that has symbolic significance" while " myth" means "a sacred narrative, often thought to be a lesson in story form..." This article is not discussing a myth, because it is not a narrative story, but a recurring element in several different (and otherwise often totally unrelated) stories. Motif is clearly the correct word to represent what is being discussed, unless this was specifically only one story that had the details, or a specific story that did as compared to others that did but aren't being discussed. The word motif is also used in other articles to describe the same situation. No other article uses the word myth in this way.
3) Wikipedia:Naming conventions clearly says that words in article titles should not be capitalized unless they would also be capitlized in a normal sentence (except for the first word, which has to be by the technical limitations of the encyclopedia if nothing else).
Adding that all up, the title should be Missing sun motif and not Missing Sun motif or Missing Sun myth or Missing Sun Myth (or even Missing sun myth or Missing sun Myth or Missing sun Motif or whatever other variation of incorrect usage can be spliced together). And, look, that's what it is called.
The situation is resolved. There's nothing left to debate (not that the people complaining are even trying to debate anything half the time). The people voting in the VfD of the Missing Sun myth fork article agree that that page either needs to be deleted or redirect here. Consensus has been reached, and it has been reached for a long time. The only resaon it is still being talked about is because of a couple of editors who filed an RfC against me and didn't get anyone else to endorse it have chosen this article to be their current battleground at which to cause fighting and conflict. Even User:Gabrielsimon has admitted that the current title is correct, and he was the one doing most of the reverts to the other way.
Unless someone can come up with a legitimate reason otherwise, I will remove the tag on the article claiming that there is a dispute about the article, because it seems that all there really is is a personal conflict that some people will not let go and not a real dispute about the content at all. DreamGuy 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that all parties on this talk page go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and make a joint request. ~~~~ 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur with the edits by Ed Poor and the change of the name Missing sun motif to Sun gods in mythology. All other users sign with four ~.
1. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not concur with the edits by
Ed Poor and the change of the name
Missing sun motif to
Sun gods in mythology. All other users sign with four ~.
rfc comment. First, it's more than a "motif"; the "missingness" is definitely mythological. Second, this article should address more than just "eclipse/winter explanations"; the daily recreation of the world with the rising morning sun is an important part of Egyptian mythology. Third, since Solar deity is merely a list of solar deities, I would see a case for merging this article with solar deity (as a section within that), if the existing list content there is moved to List of solar deities (which currently redirects to solar deity). Otherwise, missing Sun myth (capitalised) is IMO appropriate because we talking about the absence of the Sun from the heavens; there's a clear astronomical sense. In any case, missing sun myth sounds like people complaining about the weather. Rd232 10:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. This user has been blocked for violating the three revert rule several times, and behavior of the kind seen in this page just days ago. Please read it and contribute with your comments. -- Pablo D. Flores 14:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to the discussion page of wikipedia, admittedly, but I haven't even read this whole thing and I'd just like to say that if nothing else, I admire the passion of everyone involved in this edit war.
P.S. I don't know what wikipedia's policy on comments like these is, so I apologise if I'm breaking the rules... too much lol.
Don't neglect the other pages on wikipedia cause of your passion for this one, though! - Fluck 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
havent read all of this but if its referring to the supposed disapearance of the star which our planet orbits then we have a proper noun and hence require Sun with the capital S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.5.252 ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I say "NAY!". It is where it belongs, and it should stay there. I think User:Skysmith would agree with me, if one looks at the history of the Amaterasu article, as they used it first.
And even if it weren't a mythological technicality, it is usually referred to as the "the Sun" anyway, making User:DreamGuy's argument moot.
elvenscout742 29 June 2005 07:30 (UTC)
Missing Sun is the name of the myth, therefore both Missing and Sun should be capitalized. What is your problem with this Dreamguy? Please discuss here instead of leaving rude comments in the history entries.-- AI 19:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, please read the first paragraph of this article before changing Missing Sun myth again. elvenscout742 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)
It occurred to me that my change calling this a motif was something that shouldn't just be in the lead sentence but in the title. "Missing sun myth" is a misnomer, as a myth is a discrete story while motifs are themes in stories. An article talking about how many myths feature missing suns is discussing a motif, not a myth. It would also be somewhat accurate to have called it missing sun myths but Wikipedia policy doesn't like plurals.
Now between this explanation, the rules for capitalization in general (as shown at Wikipedia:Capitalization), and also the very specifical example on that page showing that sun should be lowercase unless used in astronomy, hopefully there will be no more pointless bickering and trying to get it back to a version that was incorrect in several ways. DreamGuy 19:58, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can see, it is correct to capitalise Sun in this case, and correct to call it a motif rather than a myth. So, perhaps you could split the difference and go with that? Failing that, why in the world hasn't this dispute been referred to an RFC? — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
The article should be moved back to it's original file name. Dreamguy moved the article against the consensus of current contributors and others watching this dispute. -- AI 23:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You see, the flaw in your argument is that he moved it back to its original filename. It is the ones who moved it away that have to establish a consensus for the move, when it is clearly disputed. I do not see a consensus amongst the wikipedia community for the move. ~~~~ 01:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I've protected this page pending the completion of the VfD. You people really need to stop edit warring over this issue. Kelly Martin 05:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I have closed the VfD in question and am about to unprotect the article page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
This is probably one of the lamest edit wars ever to hit this encyclopedia, so I decided to add a template and a little taste of the dispute in the first sentence. A little compromise would do everyone here a little good, and besides, Sun is almost always capitalized, and since this is an article, Myth should be capitalized as well. Anyone who has a problem with this really needs to go back to the third grade! I won't move the page though, but I recommend that the dispute in question be resolved as quickly as possible. Also, the notion that a slight fluctuation in capitalization would distort the ability of other users to access this article is moot. Take care, Horatii/Dbraceyrules 15:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1) Sun should be lowercase, as clearly and undeniably shown on Wikipedia:Capitalization in the Celestial bodies section: "The words sun, earth, and moon are proper nouns when used in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere: so "The Sun is a main sequence star, with a spectral class of G2"; but "It was a lovely day and the sun was warm". A few people have tried to claim that this article is about astronomy and so it should be capitalized, but that argument is clearly false as this is about mythology and other articles do not capitalize sun except for strictly astronomical ones, where there may be confusion between which sun you are talking about. There is no confusion here.
2) " Motif" means "any recurring element that has symbolic significance" while " myth" means "a sacred narrative, often thought to be a lesson in story form..." This article is not discussing a myth, because it is not a narrative story, but a recurring element in several different (and otherwise often totally unrelated) stories. Motif is clearly the correct word to represent what is being discussed, unless this was specifically only one story that had the details, or a specific story that did as compared to others that did but aren't being discussed. The word motif is also used in other articles to describe the same situation. No other article uses the word myth in this way.
3) Wikipedia:Naming conventions clearly says that words in article titles should not be capitalized unless they would also be capitlized in a normal sentence (except for the first word, which has to be by the technical limitations of the encyclopedia if nothing else).
Adding that all up, the title should be Missing sun motif and not Missing Sun motif or Missing Sun myth or Missing Sun Myth (or even Missing sun myth or Missing sun Myth or Missing sun Motif or whatever other variation of incorrect usage can be spliced together). And, look, that's what it is called.
The situation is resolved. There's nothing left to debate (not that the people complaining are even trying to debate anything half the time). The people voting in the VfD of the Missing Sun myth fork article agree that that page either needs to be deleted or redirect here. Consensus has been reached, and it has been reached for a long time. The only resaon it is still being talked about is because of a couple of editors who filed an RfC against me and didn't get anyone else to endorse it have chosen this article to be their current battleground at which to cause fighting and conflict. Even User:Gabrielsimon has admitted that the current title is correct, and he was the one doing most of the reverts to the other way.
Unless someone can come up with a legitimate reason otherwise, I will remove the tag on the article claiming that there is a dispute about the article, because it seems that all there really is is a personal conflict that some people will not let go and not a real dispute about the content at all. DreamGuy 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that all parties on this talk page go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and make a joint request. ~~~~ 21:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur with the edits by Ed Poor and the change of the name Missing sun motif to Sun gods in mythology. All other users sign with four ~.
1. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not concur with the edits by
Ed Poor and the change of the name
Missing sun motif to
Sun gods in mythology. All other users sign with four ~.
rfc comment. First, it's more than a "motif"; the "missingness" is definitely mythological. Second, this article should address more than just "eclipse/winter explanations"; the daily recreation of the world with the rising morning sun is an important part of Egyptian mythology. Third, since Solar deity is merely a list of solar deities, I would see a case for merging this article with solar deity (as a section within that), if the existing list content there is moved to List of solar deities (which currently redirects to solar deity). Otherwise, missing Sun myth (capitalised) is IMO appropriate because we talking about the absence of the Sun from the heavens; there's a clear astronomical sense. In any case, missing sun myth sounds like people complaining about the weather. Rd232 10:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just placed a request for comment on Gabrielsimon's behavior. This user has been blocked for violating the three revert rule several times, and behavior of the kind seen in this page just days ago. Please read it and contribute with your comments. -- Pablo D. Flores 14:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty new to the discussion page of wikipedia, admittedly, but I haven't even read this whole thing and I'd just like to say that if nothing else, I admire the passion of everyone involved in this edit war.
P.S. I don't know what wikipedia's policy on comments like these is, so I apologise if I'm breaking the rules... too much lol.
Don't neglect the other pages on wikipedia cause of your passion for this one, though! - Fluck 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
havent read all of this but if its referring to the supposed disapearance of the star which our planet orbits then we have a proper noun and hence require Sun with the capital S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.5.252 ( talk) 02:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)