Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing Sun myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and redirect to Missing sun motif. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Sun myth

Note to closing admin: This VfD relates to a cut and paste move which resulted in an edit war. Please keep this in mind when deciding how to close the VfD. Kelly Martin 12:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


NOTE THE CAPITALISATION

Article is a copy+paste duplicate of Missing sun motif, created by a user to suit their side of an edit war.


You can't delete AND redirect. --AI 10:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Sure we can. Delete the contents of the fork file and put a redirect in its place. Easy. DreamGuy 16:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
You can't put a redirect into something that's been deleted unless you're talking about recreating the file after the delete. But that would be called Delete, recreate, redirect. Take a look at dab's comment. IMHO, the actions by DreamGuy and Ril are bad faith and POV. --AI 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Some people are capable of filling in the lines without having to specify it for people who are slow. DreamGuy 03:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missing sun motif. --Scimitar 17:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is the proper name of the article, but it's better to delete this and change the name of the orginal article back. elvenscout742 18:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Elvenscout742's solution. --AI 10:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • hello? you don't need a vfd for this. Simply redirect to the original, any user can do that. If I remember correctly, we do have a MoS guideline to capitalize celestial bodies like Sun, Earth, Moon etc. Not that I care, though, clearly one of these needs to be a redirect, never mind which. If people decide they want the article at Missing Sun myth after all, the place to go is WP:RM.

dab (ᛏ) 19:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the MoS says we capitalize the bodies when used in a scientific/astronomical context. The example on Wikipedia:Capitalization "the sun was warm today" (or something like that) clearly shows that in other cases it is lowercase. This whole thing is a result of the original editor, elvenscout, refusing to follow the manual of style. DreamGuy 04:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that is only a guideline. --AI 01:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, we could write all our articles in bold if we wanted, but it would be heavily frowned upon. ~~~~ 10:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
What would warrant having all bold lettering? Your point is irrelevant. --AI 10:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the point is quite relevant, you just aren't following along. If you made an entire article bold, breaking Manual of Style guidelines, it'd be undone. If you miscapitalizae the word sun, you are also breaking the guidelines. Saying they are "just guidelines" is entirely missing the point. DreamGuy 03:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per dab royblumy 00:25 13 July, 2005 (UTC)
  • REDIRECTED to Missing sun motif since this was just a c/p of that article, whether to move this article back or not is an issue for a later time and not an issue for a VFD. Jtkiefer 01:02, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • strong Keep - this article is the orgional, and was turned into Missing sun motif by dreamGuy against consensus, hence delete Missing Sun Motif instead. Gabrielsimon 06:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

*Keep Do not redirect. The reason given for this VfD is misleading. Check the facts I have prepared with references for ease of understanding for those of you who don't have time to deal with such a "petty issue." --AI 01:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Please do not go replacing either article with a redirect or remove the VfD header from Missing Sun myth. Please leave the responsibility to do this to whoever closes the VfD (which should be taking place very soon now). Kelly Martin 04:56, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've protected both pages pending the completion of this VfD because you people can't seem to resist the urge to edit war. Stop it, all of you. I leave it to the closing admin to remove the protection and decide what to do with the articles. Kelly Martin 05:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and work out what to move and redirect to where afterward. Two versions of one article is unacceptable. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thats exactly why missing syn motif has to go.Gabrielsimon 05:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
While I agree with you in theory, Gabrielsimon, it is the copy-paste one that has to go. Once it is gone, we can try to work out an arrangement by which "Missing sun motif" can be moved back to its original name. After this is deleted (and hopefully it will be), we can put the original one (which had its name wrongly changed) up on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Then it will all end.elvenscout742 12:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Putting the article back at Missing Sun myth involves not one but two blatant errors (improper capitalization and incorrect word choice) and isn't at all likely to happen. DreamGuy 15:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Dreamguy you started this edit war on such a petty issue? --AI 10:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Nope, I just fixed the problems with the article. The edit war began when people ignored the errors and decided to return it to the original incorrect version out of personal spite (as shown in the RfC that already happened over the article). And if it is a petty issue, why is that you feel so strongly about it that you kept reverting it even after the VfD started so that the pages in question had to be protected? DreamGuy 16:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
You reverted the page more often than I did. This is a petty issue, and you are the one enforcing your determining of "errors" based on a Wikipedia guideline. When consensus did not support your point of view, you acted against the wishes of those engaged in the discussion and moved the page and you used snide comments to discredit your opposition. IMHO, that is BAD FAITH. --AI 22:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Consensus does support my view... the only people who do not are the original article's creator and two people (yourself and Gabrielsimon) who actively looked through my edits to undo things I did. What you call consensus was really just a gang up of people who didn't care about the article and wanted to get back at me personally... Now that more people have weighed in they are overwhelmingly against you. And your failed RfC on this issue further proves the point. DreamGuy 03:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
when you commmited these actions, consensus was against you, . see the edit histories on talk pages for proof. Gabrielsimon 03:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Only if by "consensus" you mean the original article author and two editors with a proven history making incredibly bad decisions solely to undo changes I made without having any history or knowledge of the articles in question... Now that editors who are willing to actually look at the article have done so, consensus is clearly established showing that you were wrong. You already lost your RfC, you've lost all these other disputes you've caused just to be difficult, isn't it about time you just gave it a rest and stopped your petty harassment for a change? DreamGuy 03:53, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
for one thing i hve never harassed you. not really. you might call it that to play victim, but tis npt whats going on, and for a seconbdthing, you just admitted TWO editors to your one vote said not to, thats yoiu going agsinst consensus if anything is. Gabrielsimon 03:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • sincve missing sun myth is the origiona;l ., then why isnt missing sun motif the copy paste? Gabrielsimon 12:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Because [[Missing sun motif] wasn't a copy & paste, it was moved, following standard Wikipedia policy concerning moves, taking the article, history and talk file with it. Your copying and pasting the text of the article back erases the history and the edit comments and creates a fork file, which is against Wikipedia policy.
  • Redirect to Missing sun motif. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Missing sun motif, the accurate title of the topic. Considering that the editors involved have reverted the various articles (main one and three redirects) in question even knowing that a VfD was in process and that their RfC over the conflict failed to win any suport, deleting is a bad idea as the editors will no doubt just move the article back to the location against the clear concensus of everyone involved and require an admin to step in to set things right again. DreamGuy 15:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT

  • User:AI and then User:Elvenscout742 requested that I'd vote here, althought I find it rather amusing that the whole thing began about a disagreement about capitalization. Now, in the old Amaterasu edit (couple of years ago) I used the term I am familiar with and, as far as I know, capitalization is irrelevant. However, I know more about history than mythological studies and more about Carl Jung than Joseph Campbell. If there is another, more scholarly or official term for these mythological tales, I'm afraid that you have to consult people who have majored in comparative mythology and state your sources. My information in that respect is second-hand.
  • Now, as far as I can see, the article in question is a copy of the other one. Since WP usually tries to preserve the edit history of the original text, the copy-paste should go. Regardless of the final name of the article, at least one version of the "missing sun myth" should stay at least as a redirect (and mentioned in the article), since it is in use at least in the circles I know - Skysmith 12:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT

  • If the new cut & paste is deleted, the talk page should be merged into the original because much of the recent discussion is occuring on the cut & paste article. --AI 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable to me - Skysmith 08:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


NOTE TO VOTERS, ADMINS, AND OUTSIDE VIEWS: Please examine the circumstances regarding capitalization which is the basis of dispute and the cause of this VfD. --AI 11:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Further Note: one article uses the term "myth" the other "motif" ~~~~ 16:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.