Talk:Missing Sun myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Proposed move

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)

The fact that someone else did it wrong elsewhere doesn't mean that it should stay wrong. (By the way, I fixed improper capitalization in the header above... Looks like someone has chronic problems with capitalizing words for no reason and against Wikipedia style rules... No wonder he's so confused on this article.) DreamGuy July 1, 2005 01:42 (UTC)
As far as I know, capitalization is irrelevant in this case, though I think that Elvenscout's argument has some merit. - Skysmith 2 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

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)

Myths do not have names, it is purely a descriptive phrase and therefore is not capitalized. You need to back off your insistence upon making reverts on articles just because you got upset that pointed out that things you were entering in articles was pseudoscience and not real and had to either be labeled as such or removed from articles about real topics. DreamGuy 08:12, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
I will not back off and have entered many complaints about you, Dreamguy, in your new RfC. I stand by my opinion that Missing Sun should be capitalized, JUST LIKE THAT. --AI 23:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, please read the first paragraph of this article before changing Missing Sun myth again. elvenscout742 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

Elvenscout742, please go read the rules for capitalization before changing this article again. Errors on other pages do not count as justification for making the same and even more errors on this one. DreamGuy July 8, 2005 11:00 (UTC)
I don't care about those capitalization rules right now. The Sun article is right, as are the hundreds of books that I've seen spell it with an upper case S, as are the majority of English-speakers who can spell. You, I'm afraid, are the one that has made the error. elvenscout742 02:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, lookey, lookey! Even your precious rules agree with me on this. Looks like you are at last beaten, DreamGuy! elvenscout742 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
It'd help if you actually read the section. It clearly says that "The words sun, earth, and moon are proper nouns when used in an astronomical context, but not elsewhere". This article is not using the term in an astronomical context, it is using it in the mythological context. Even the example there ("It was a lovely day and the sun was warm") proves you wrong. Sun is lowercase, and the link you provided proves it. DreamGuy 19:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I did read the section. How do think I knew it agreed with me? This is in an astromonical context, referring specifically to our Sun. Nowhere does it say "The sun is warm today" or anything like that. It deals with the celestial body, not casual conversation regarding the weather. elvenscout742 11:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
You did not read the section because you claim that it agrees with you when it clearly DOES NOT. Your claim that Nowhere does it say "The sun is warm today" or anything like that. is simply false. Check the middle of the second paragraph in the Celestial bodies section of the Manual of Style for capitalization. At this point your stubborness and unwillingness to admit you are wrong is self-evident. DreamGuy 18:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
You say I did not read it when my above posts show that I did. Are you thrying to claim that I can't read two paragraphs of simple text? When I said Nowhere does it say "The sun is warm today" or anything like that, I was clearly referring to this article, not the Wiki-guideline, and what I had in quotes was a reference to the example the guideline gave - I pointed out that this article I wrote and you perverted, insulting my intelligence, does not use any such phrase. elvenscout742 18:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
USer:Elvenscout742 asks: "Are you thrying to claim that I can't read two paragraphs of simple text?" There is an example there of correct usage, which you ignored. Whether it's that you are incapable of reading two paragraphs or just unwilling to do so because it proes you wrong is uncertain. DreamGuy 14:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Elvenscout is correct, The article is using SUN in an astronomical context. DreamGuy, why is Guy capitalized in your name? Shouldn't it be Dreamguy? --AI 23:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Did you read the example on the Manual of Style page in question showing that simple reference to the sun does not imply an astronomical context? Did you happen to check the plenty of other articles using sun in lowercase in mythological contexts? Did you bother to check anything out at all, or are you just assuming I am wrong because you get to continue a series of personal attacks and obstructionism against me that you have been clearly warned against by the admins here? DreamGuy 14:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New name of article

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)

No, DreamGuy, it was not you who used the word motif. I used it when I first wrote the article over a month before you came along and started ruining it ([1]). I think you misunderstood the reference to Sun having a capital S. The article said that it has a capital when it refers specifically to our Sun as opposed to other suns elsewhere in the Universe (upper case for that, too, FYI). This article is about the myth that has many different versions that each detail the beliefs of a particular culture as to why our Sun disppears at night, or during the winter. (Also, on a side note, this article does deal with primitive astronomy. It's not some guy saying "Oh, the sun is hot today".) elvenscout742 11:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
No, sorry, but it's clear that you are completely wrong. Again, the Celestial bodies section of the Manual of Style for capitalization makes this explicitly clear. This is not an article about astronomy. The example given on the page linked to makes it clear that only scientific astronomical references capitalize the Sun and it is otherwise lowercase. And also you clearly do not understand the difference between a myth and a motif. See the article World egg for an example. That is not called Egg myth because it's not a myth, it's a theme (i.s. motif) in a group of myths.DreamGuy 18:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
That is an unprovoked personal attack on my knowledge of mythology. Their are other examples of the egg motif than the world egg. Try reading some of "Mythology: An Anthology of World Myth and Storytelling". I am not in the mood to make any more "revenge reverts" right now, so for the time being I will let you away with this. Hopefully soon there will come a time when you can no longer do this. (BTW, if I wanted revenge, I'd make personal attacks and start following you around Wikipedia undoing all your edits on subjects I know next to nothing about, but I'm bigger than that, as are User:Gabrielsimon, User:Dbraceyrules and User:AI. Apparently, and unfortunately, though, you are not.) elvenscout742 19:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
One's personal knowledge of mythology is irrelevant. Please avoid original research. ~~~~ 20:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Ril, please don't change the subject, original research is not the issue. DreamGuy is trying to enforce guidelines as if they are god and at the same time he violates official wikipedia policy to facilitate his POV. --AI 11:23, 18 July 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)

How does the very clear section in Wikipedia:Capitalization that usage such as "the sun is warm today" in lowercase lead you to believe that sun should be capitalized in the title of this article? Sun is only capitalized in astronomical references, not every use of the word sun. This is not about astronomy, this is about generic reference to the sun. There's no need to differentiate it from other "suns" out there because, unlike with astronomy articles, we would only be talking about one sun. DreamGuy 19:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Possibly because it has only been contended for less than 1 day? ~~~~ 22:14, 11 July 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)

No, look at the history. I wrote the article toward the beginning of May as "Missing Sun myth", and about a month later DreamGuy came along, made a series of bogus claims regarding the definition of the word "mythology", among other things, and started stubbornly changing the title, against the consensus of myself, AI, Gabrielsimon and Skysmith. He was the one who changed it from its original title, and did it by going against the consensus. elvenscout742 11:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Ril's "prejudice" towards me is unfounded. The "flaw" he is pointing out does not exist. --AI 11:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

which is why when it was moved, i put it back. Gabrielsimon 09:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

if he moves it again, why doesnt someone report him for derailing the democratic process of this site... its almost like hes soap-boxing. Gabrielsimon 09:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection

I redirected the article to Missing sun motif for the time being since that seemed to be the consensus on the vfd page at the time, whether or not you want to move it up should be discussed here and if a decision is made should be brought to WP:RM since vfd is not the correct place for this. Jtkiefer 01:07, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that this was not an endorsement of one side or another, it was an attempt to fulfill the apparent consensus on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Missing Sun myth since there was nobody opposing it and whether or not to leave the page like this or move it should be based on a consensus reached on this talk page. Jtkiefer 01:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with this redirection to the "new name" of the article, consider these facts:
  1. There is a general concensus that S should be capitalized because it is believed by the contributors to be a Name. DreamGuy was the only one who insisted that the s should not be capitalized, based on his opinion that the capitalization of S is an error. [2]
  2. Instead of conceding to consensus, Dreamguy files a request for move on 29 June. [3]
  3. Elvenscout and I opposed the move and posted our votes on July 3, but DreamGuy violated Wikipedia policy and removed our votes on 8 July and wrote in the edit summary: "Removed comments by editors who are just plain wrong and should put comments on the actual talk page". [4]
  4. On July 10, 09:50, DreamGuy went ahead and moved the article from Missing Sun myth to Missing sun motif. [5]
  5. On July 10, 10:01, DreamGuy deleted the Request for move and wrote in the edit summary: "removed request, as it is no longer needed since article name was changed to remove other error as well" [6]
  6. On 12 July, Ril files a VfD on Missing Sun myth. The reason given: "Article is a copy+paste duplicate of Missing sun motif, created by a user to suit their side of an edit war." [7]
Concensus was ignored by Dreamguy in his move, he suppressed opposition in the request for move. The reason given in the Vfd was misleading, given these circumstances. --AI 00:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this page pending the completion of the VfD. You people really need to stop edit warring over this issue. Kelly Martin 05:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Kelly. That is a good call. --AI 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty bizarre. The page had to be protected because you and another editor were the ones reverting it back against the wishes of several other editors and the consensus of VfD, and now you say it was a good call to lock it? Then you admit that you were in the wrong then? Or are you not quite understanding that the protection was specifically to prevent you from doing to it what you kept doing? DreamGuy 15:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Outcome

Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 12, 2005. The result of the discussion was Keep and redirect to Missing sun motif.