Talk:Sh 2-155/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move 5 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Sh2-155 via technical request. Good enough for me. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl ^talk 03:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

---

S 155 → Cave Nebula – A simple search for "Cave Nebula" appears to show it as the WP:COMMONNAME and the most natural sounding name. This article was created under the title but moved to the more obscure catalog name, which is probably incorrect – shouldn't it technically be Sh2-155? – with no reason for a preference for the Sharpless catalog. Anyway, we don't have the Orion Nebula under the title NGC X for this same reason. Laurdecl ^talk 13:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom. A simple Google search shows this as the common name. NASA themselves and pretty much every secondary source refer to this nebula as the "Cave Nebula", no need to use incorrect catalog names. Laurdecl ^talk 08:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that the page should be moved. I have no idea how common the name "Cave Nebula" is. The name "Sh2-155" is better than the currently incorrect name. Here is the page on Simbad [1]. They don't list a common name, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything. Here's a link to APOD using "Sh2-155: The Cave Nebula" as their title for the article, which supports that the common name is in fact real [2]. OtterAM (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support move to Sh2-155. Per discussion below, "Cave Nebula" is not an acceptable name, but "Sh2-155" is more accurate than than "S 155". OtterAM (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cave nebula redirect article should be moved here.Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There is no Cave Nebula article. Laurdecl ^talk 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I have struck this !vote because you have made another one below. Laurdecl ^talk 20:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose The Cave Nebula is not a commonly used name, making the claim of WP:COMMONNAME here is invalid. Also as Laurdecl requesting support for change can be construed as grooming to validate their view on consensus. (You've ask the question, then you should let the result rest where it falls.) As for saying "Anyway, we don't have the Orion Nebula under the title NGC X for this same reason." is silly. The Orion nebula goes back to the 15th Century as a name. Sh 155 is mostly an obscure Cepheus nebula whose naming is dubious at best and not very commonly known. Following this logic, every nebulae therefore should have a name, I presume? Plainly a superficial and facile argument. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

IMPORTANT RELATED COMMENTS: @Laurdecl: Again. You clearly haven't thought this through. Sh2-155 is named in SIMBAD here [3] The Cave Nebula does appear in SIMBAD as a reflection nebula [4], which is actually nothing to do with Sh2-155. (The true Cave nebula is at RA and Dec is 22h 13m 27s +70° 15′ 18" (2000) while Sh2-155 is at 22h 57m 54s +62° 31′ 06″.)

The very foolish Patrick Moore's had the name added by him, seeming unbeknown that the name also referred to another Cepheus nebula of the same name. (The reason, among others, that the Caldwell catalogue is poorly conceived mess and should not be used.) Discussion of this is here.[5]

Worse, even the article title is already wrong, as its modern catalogue name should be Sh2-155 NOT 'S 155'. It was known as S 155 in the 1960s.

So while it is great in this example to seek consensus here, you must know the facts first. I.e. It fails the WP:COMMONNAME test, anyway.

As I've said with the unnecessary changes and edits of the alleged Running Man Nebula, this is yet another example of individuals gaining notoriety but naming some celestial object in which there is no actual common usage, and by others promoting it, just cements it as true when it is in fact dubious, inconsequential, unciteable and fictional. (In this case hanging by one thread of some random article that someone stumbled upon.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT RELATED REPLY: I don't follow what you're trying to say. NASA calls this nebula the Cave Nebula [6]. Laurdecl ^talk 11:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

As for the Running Man Nebula, the title before I moved it was "NGC 1973, NGC 1975, and NGC 1977". You don't seriously think that's a better name, do you? Laurdecl ^talk 11:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Laurdecl: Your kidding aren't you? The Astronomy Picture of the Day site isn't a primary source nor is NASA a primary source of astronomical nomenclature. (IAU or SIMBAD is.) As for saying "You don't seriously think that's a better name, do you?" is utter folly. Sources in Wikipedia must be citeable and verifiable and what my opinion is is absolutely irrelevant. Only a few astronomical deep sky objects have common names but the majority are just catalogue numbers. Clearly you changed the article name to Running Man Nebula, without any consensus. Change it or properly justify it, or your edits will be rightfully reverted. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Dial it back, Arianne -- Elphion (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Elphion: Eh? Dial back from what? There is absolutely no consensus for this edit, that is only the central point. WP:GF is one thing, but making unjustifiable edits and then me proving them invalid is another. Having a common name isn't the priority, the catalogue number is more often or not the designation, where Laurdecl presumes it is. I've explained my reasoning logically and precisely, and Laurdecl saying in their defense "You don't seriously think that's a better name, do you?" reflects Laurdecl of lack of understanding of this naming problem here. (Also changing Running Man Nebula just seemingly confirms this misunderstanding.) Also if you as Elphion wishes to affirm or condemn the situation here, say so, else by saying "Dial back, Ariane" is also deemed as avoiding the necessary WP:PA. Just saying. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Dial it back from language like "You're kidding, arent you?", "utter folly", "clearly haven't thought this through", "very foolish", and "Plainly a superficial and facile argument". It is your penchant to go for the linguistic jugular that makes it so unpleasant to deal with you. Just state the facts without trying to smash your opponent verbally into smithereens.

I had not expressed an opinion on the requested move. Laurdecl created the page as "Cave Nebula", it got moved by StringTheory11 to the questionable "S 155", and Laurdecl is following standard procedure to request moving it back again. There is no need to go ballistic over that. OtterAM suggests the alternative "SH2 155". I think that's the appropriate target, especially since "Cave Nebula" is used for more than one deep sky object. (Hat notes on both articles can disambiguate "Cave Nebula".)

As far as common names are concerned, your argument that "Cave Nebula" should not refer to this object is not really relevant. Laurdecl has already provided examples of that usage, and since both cases have large audiences, that name has increasing currency. I know you don't like that, but your remarks on WP talk pages are not going to stop that process. While you characterize the name as "fictional", the fact is that it is already widely used, and likely to become more so. In a similar way, "Spindle Galaxy" is ambiguously and widely used for both NGC 3115 and NGC 5866. The right course is simply to provide cross references. Simply ignoring one or the other just leads to more confusion.

-- Elphion (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You're complaints of here (assumed via WP:PA) are quite unjustified, and all I see is an attempt to dilute the argument by "accusing the accuser". Let's see...

"You're kidding, aren't you?" The actual accusation made to me was "You don't seriously think that's a better name, do you?" All I stated was that the source had to be properly cited, which has nothing to do with if I agreed to some name or another. It is assuming something I didn't say and misrepresents my point. It is factual and "utter folly" infers this is a false assertion.

"Clearly haven't thought this through", is a factual statement, mostly because the response by Laurdecl "You don't seriously think that's a better name, do you?" is nothing to do with what I said. The Catalogue name IS the identifier to the object. It is the given name that is clearly dubious and questionable.

Me saying "very foolish" cannot be construed as a WP:PA as it refers to Moore not Laurdecl at all.

"Plainly a superficial and facile argument" is a (deliberate) misrepresentation of what I said, which was " Following this logic, every nebulae therefore should have a name, I presume? Plainly a superficial and facile argument." This refers only that every nebulae isn't or hasn't been named, and cannot be construed as WP:PA in anyway.

As for: "It is your penchant to go for the linguistic jugular that makes it so unpleasant to deal with you. Just state the facts without trying to smash your opponent verbally into smithereens."

So what! The strength shown towards a supporting argument has little to do with WP:PA nor WP:GF, and I have not deified an Wikipedia rules here. I've (as shown above) have not attacked the User, I have attacked the ideas.

Towards "As far as common names are concerned, your argument that "Cave Nebula" should not refer to this object is not really relevant. Laurdecl has already provided examples of that usage, and since both cases have large audiences, that name has increasing currency."

Again that is an utterly false and misleading statement by you. Again I did say "Sources in Wikipedia must be citeable and verifiable and what my opinion is is absolutely irrelevant." and I have never said "that "Cave Nebula" should not refer to this object." (If you actually understood what I said, in SIMBAD the object referred as the "Cave Nebula" is not the same as Sh-155, and in SIMBAD Sh-155 is not named the "Cave Nebula" at all. SIMBAD is a primary source, a NASA APOD site is not.) Furthermore, Laurdecl provided only one single example (in the article) for the name NOT examples. Worse of all , it is not a primary source, though the links that I gave could support such an argument. The true article even stated an unverifiable origin.

Lastly, "While you characterize the name as "fictional", the fact is that it is already widely used, and likely to become more so." Is another false accusation. The use of my word "fictional" refers to the way these common names are added in by individuals, which is a practice of 'promotion' to gain popular notoriety. It is cleverly implied that the name is in common use, and it is picked-up by some source that knows no better, then the name snowballs out of control. Wikipedia is a great target, because it is immediately picked up in Google, and then spreads across the net.

I've actually said "The Cave Nebula is not a commonly used name." Here the "fictional" part I refer is about perpetrator methods to seeking notoriety by making up a name for the hell of it.

So please get your facts straight before again making such unsupported and/or false statements. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You've made your point. As for "attacking ideas", please read WP:BATTLEGROUND. APOD is an official NASA site, as the big bold text at the bottom says. The first three links I find on Google use the name "Cave Nebula": [7], [8], [9]. WP:COMMONNAME states that the name used should be the one that is most used full stop, not the "official" (a dubious claim since NASA uses it). Laurdecl ^talk 20:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, none of these primary references. Just the blind mindlessly following the blind. Again, this NASA site is at best a tertiary source. Funny too, Sh-155 is used more often than Cave Nebula, which says more about what the title should be. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I have 20/20 vision, so your claim of me being blind is utterly false nonsense (one might even call it the highest folly). Secondly, you obviously haven't read WP:PRIMARY which explicitly states that articles should be based on SECONDARY sources. Clearly you haven't thought through your superficial and facile argument. Laurdecl ^talk 05:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

What? Saying "I have 20/20 vision, so your claim of me being blind is utterly false nonsense (one might even call it the highest folly)." No you've misread. The comment has nothing to do with your eyesight. It is those who create the name, then use tactics to get it into Google, making the name popular and trend. Their purpose is to get sites to use the name then people like you believe it has a long history - when it hasn't hence it is like a form of gaming. (This is the true evil I'm against.) Also primary sources are the ones who observers will frequent. I.e. SIMBAD or the IAU. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read WP:PRIMARY which explicitly states that articles should be based on SECONDARY sources. "Th [sic] comment has nothing to do with your eyesight" – REALLY?? "The true evil I'm against" – Please stop, you're cracking me up. Laurdecl ^talk 09:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Trying reading WP:GF, sunshine, because this response here is just insulting. My comments are how individuals are promoting these common names (which I assume you are not one of them.) Good luck getting consensus. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what "trying reading" [sic] means, buttercup. You are obviously ignoring the fact that NASA, among others, use this name. And you are ignoring Elphion's example about the Spindle Galaxy naming, as well as the fact that this article was originally named "Cave Nebula". Good luck on your holy crusade against evil. Laurdecl ^talk 05:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME the article title should reflect the most widespread usage. This is still S 155 which is why it was moved to this name in the first place. It is more correctly Sh2-155, but that designation has been widely shortened. The proper name Cave Nebula is both ambiguous and confusing. It has been applied to other objects, not only one a few degrees away in Cepheus, but originally as a whole class of objects with reflection nebulae in regions devoid of stars at the centre of emissions regions. This usage was applied to S 155 long before the Caldwell Catalog (Lynds & Oneil, 1986). Cave Nebula is clearly ambiguous (disambiguation page?), the only question is whether Sh2-155 is now more commonly used than S 155. A literature search since 2000 shows more results for S 155 than for Sh2-155 and Cave Nebula combined. Curiously S155 is also used more often than Sh2-155 or Cave Nebula. Lithopsian (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that Cave Nebula is ambiguous, but I think the best decision is to move the article to Sh2-155. The designation "S 155" is over-abbreviated, so you can't search it up on SIMBAD (and a Google search for "S 155" yields many results not related to the nebula). The main reason why I like Sh2-155 because it provides consistency with other articles with the Sharpless designation, such as Sh2-101, Sh2-106, and Sh2-54. Loooke (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree: "Sh2-155" is the most accurate designation, the least likely to turn up false positives on web searches, and conforms to the format we use in the Sharpless Catalog template embedded in the article. (Obviously forwards and dabs will be needed for the other candidates.) -- Elphion (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Lithopsian response here is absolutely spot on. However, I'd just point out the S 155 is likely incorrect, because it refers to the 1st version of the Shapeless Catalogue, but this ends at number in the 140s. It is Sh2 - the two because it is the second iteration / update of the catalogue. Furthermore, 'S' as a designation I believe is now used for Heinze stars or emission stars in the LMC/SMC. In SIMBAD it is here.[10], which queries 'NAME S 155.'

The designation order for Sh2 nebulae (if it has multiple objects/nebulae, like Sh2-279) is firstly, Sh2, then other NGC No. or Catalogue, followed by the common name. (It just follows largest to smallest structures.)

As a final comment, I see novices making these name edits, then are justifying them by the various sources - especially astrophotographer's images - to support their arguments. However, this becomes self-propagating because they use the Wikipedia their guide to the name they use. This is what is happening here and elsewhere with many articles. With the plethora of naming of deep-sky objects and no one like the IAU maintaining a list (like the common star names adopted by them recently) the problem will just get worse. A deemed primary source, although breaking wiki etiquette, perhaps should be SIMBAD, which is at least both searchable and verifiable source, and is an independent umpire.

Note: I do honestly thank Lithopsian and Elphion for their logical purview of this situation and towards finding a sensible conclusion. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I am also happy with this name, and I mentioned it as an alternative at the start. This RM is to move the article away from the incorrect name. Laurdecl ^talk 04:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I requested a rename to Sh2-155, which is currently a redirect that requires an admin to be blanked. Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sh2-1 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)