Talk:Missing sun motif

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)
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)

[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)
Actually (and as you have no doubt seen by now), it is quite clear that it is User:Gabrielsimon, User:Dbraceyrules and User:AI who are, in fact, following me around Wikipedia undoing all my edits on subjects they know nothing about. And clearly you have not been paying attention if you think I know next to nothing about mythology. But, as you admit that the egg motif IS in fact a motf and not a myth, then you must admit the name of this article should be "motif" (as I put it) and NOT "myth" (as in your original incorrect version). The fact that you are still complaining and hoping to get the page moved back (as your comments on the VfD on the fork file your buddies created shows) indicates an unwillingness to accet what even you know to be correct when it means that you don't get to have your way. DreamGuy 15:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Well, you claim that other users get their info on mythology from very bad sources, and yet you go around removing accurate information from articles, apparently only accepting what Oxford gives as a tertiary definition of the word "mythology", changing the opening paragraph of the main mythology article and my opening paragraph of this article. And yes, I do agree that the egg thing is a motif, because, unlike the Missing Sun myth, it is in fact a motif and not a myth.elvenscout742 11:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Ugh, you just don't give up, do you? What, pray tell, do you think is the difference that makes you agree that the theme of eggs as a symbolic feature in myths is a motif but that theme of the sun disappearing is not a motif but a myth? A myth is a single discrete story, but the article in question mentions several stories from different cultures, so it is obviously a motif and not a myth. How on earth can you possbly claim otherwise? DreamGuy 15:28, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
One's personal knowledge of mythology is irrelevant. Please avoid original research. ~~~~ 20:22, 11 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)

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)

Reread my actual argument. --AI 23:05, 18 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 05:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The people reverting it at this point had already filed a RfC in which their complaints about this article were disputed by everyone else and not supported by anyone other than the the POV warriors who caused the problem in the first place. The VfD shows overwhelming consensus for the way it was before they started reverting. I was surprised to see that they made the change again recently against all the undeniable signs that they are wrong. Some people just refuse to admit when they were wrong I guess. I suspect from their history that this page may have to be protected even after the VfD is over, because if they didn't listen to the current results of the VfD and the results of the RfC they are not likely to listen when it is over either. DreamGuy 14:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
VfD was not over. Jtkiefer decided to redirect the Missing Sun myth article without authority. His action fooled me into thinking the VfD was over, it seems the action also fooled you. --AI 23:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
How can you possibly claim that I am fooled into thinking VfD is over? I said current results of the VfD... Overwhelmingly the votes have disagreed with you. You ignored that. You apparently don;t want to follow the rules here and just do whatever you want to do, especially if you think it will get back at someone who prevailed in other arguments. Perhaps you should just give up, because picking fights just to pick fights isn't getting you anywhere, as the RfC you tried to pull proved. DreamGuy 03:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
My mistake, you were not fooled. Enough with the personal attacks DreamGuy for your own sake and for the sake of Wikipedia. --AI 03:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
LOL, what personal attacks do you think you are talking about? Suggesting to you that you start acting responsibly and follow Wikipedia policies is not a personal attack. Pointing out to you that you have broken rules is not a personal attack. You should be worried about your own actions here and stop making more bizarre accusations, like those in the RfC you started but lost. DreamGuy 16:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
What does your personal comment have to do with this article? --AI 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD closed, article unprotected

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)

[edit] Lame edit war

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)

First up, Wikipedia:No personal attacks with the back to third grade comment.
Second up, did your third grade teacher really tell you to capitalize sun and myth? Your teacher was wrong if what you say is true, but it's likely not true because it's pretty bizarre that anyone would say sun and myth should be capitalized. Even the other complaining editors don't claim myth should be. If you would take a look at Wikipedia:Capitalization you would see that sun is capitalized only when used in a scientific/astronomical sense and not in normal usage. There is even an easy to follow example right there. Failing that, you could look through other articles here that use the word sun (try the nice search option) and see that sun is almost always lowercase, except when it is inside of titles of books or movies (in which case those are normally capitalized and does not mean sun should always be) or, again, in a scientific astronomical context.
Third, "Also, the notion that a slight fluctuation in capitalization is moot." doesn't even make sense as a sentence, so I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say. Capitalization does not fluctuate in encyclopedias. We have clear MAnual of Style for what capitalizations should be there and which ones should not. The article title as it currently stands follows the manual.
Fourth, yes, this should be resolved as quickly as possible. But it is already resolved. User:Gabrielsimon, who was the major individual edit warring to change the title back to the wrong way, has admitted that the new title is correct but that he was changing it back anyhow. See this link: [2]. This dispute is resolved, other than people (like yourself and User:AI) sticking their noses into an article topic they have never touched before solely to try to prolong the arguing. The title is correct now. If the author of the original incorrect version disagrees, that's fine, but he is wrong, and the other editors (from the VfD and elsewhere, including Gabrielsimon) know he is wrong. Your opinion of the capitalization is even more incorrect than the original incorrect version.
DreamGuy 17:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Oh brother, I think that the other editors concur with me. Besides, I forgot a word in my last sentence, sorry about that. Yes, you do need serious people skills DreamGuy. Quickly The dispute tag should atleast stay for the sake of disambiguation. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 18:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
How does a dispute tag do anything for "disambiguation"? What are you trying to say? The only disambiguation we need would be a couple of other titleds with redirects to this article. Any article linking to the wrong version of the article should be changed to the correct title. A tag on the actual article in no way does anything for disambiguation purposes. The tag is clearly only there to pretend that there is a content dispute when it has become obvious that it's not really a content dispute as much as it is a personal problem you and a couple of editors have. There is absolutely no evidence that the other editors agree with you, and, in fact, from their actions none of them would have capitalized "Myth" and, as I already mentioned, Gabrielsimon clearly agrees with the current title. Claiming that the "other editors" agree with you is just not based upon reality. DreamGuy 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
DreamGuy, what does your personal comment about "sticking [my] nose into an article topic [I] have never touched before" have to do with the content of this article? --AI 18:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought it would be obvious. Simply put, your motives for posting comments here on this article have nothing to do with the content of this article but solely to prolong a personal conflict. You have admitted as much yourself on the talk pages of the other editors in question. Please remove yourself from this article and do not let your personal vendetta interfere with the normal functioning of this encyclopedia in the future. DreamGuy 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I have taken an interest in this article and my interest remains. --AI 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur with compromise by User:-Ril, and therefore, will not edit this article again. I believe that the dispute tag should stay, however. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 19:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The article is only the way it is now because DreamGuy came up with a rather crude, and yet effective, trick to bypass the fact that he had lost. I personally tire of this, and would rather just leave it the way it is now than argue any more, even though I am most certainly not wrong. I do not appreciate DreamGuy reverting my edit that made it so the opening sentence makes sense, however, nor do I appreciate him taking credit for anything in this article, since I seem to be the only editor to have ever added anything worthwhile to it in its long history. elvenscout742 20:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
You have a particularly twisted view of what happened here. Your "edit that made it so the opening sentence makes sense" actually makes it incorrect. This was not a crude trick to win something I had lost, I moved the article to a name that was not inaccurate. Your emotional attachment to the article has you inventing up a conspiracy as well as refusing to admit that you are wrong when the fact that your version had many significant errors has been repeatedly pointed out to you with copious amounts of references to defnitions, policy and so forth. And if you think you are the only one who added anything worthwhile, then your ego prevents you from seeing things rationally. DreamGuy 20:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
What does your personal attack (..."twisted view"...) upon Elvenscout742 have to do with the contents of Missing sun motif? --AI 22:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll let AI defend me against those personal attacks of yours while I discredit you yet again. A "myth" is a particular kind of story (no need for specific technicalities here). A "mythology" (in the sense I used it) is a collection of myths of any particular culture (a definition, while its most common, with which you have repeatedly proven unfamiliar). What I meant in the opening sentence was that the motif appears in many mythologies from around the world. In the original text the word used was "myth", and so your change made no sense as a myth cannot appear in myths. "Mythologies" is still a better word, even if you did long ago vandalise that article so as to fit your narrow view of what the word means. Now that I think about it, you're right about me not being the only contributor: User:Wereon and User:Ashley Pomeroy changed my wording slightly, while User:DTOx changed the spelling of "Susanowo" to fit his/her new Wikipedia standard. Apart from those three, I challenge you to find me one other, permanent, positive, significant edit to this article that was not made in the first and fifth edits by yours truly.elvenscout742 23:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get to the bottom the so-called dispute

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)

Firstly, I would like to say that I no longer care for this argument, and have quite clearly given up. I am merely posting this now as you don't seem able to give it up, and I feel obliged to reply to you.
1) The article does not need to be "about astronomy" to mention something in an astonomical context. This article is not about the abstract concept of any old sun being warm, but about our particular, astronomical Sun going missing at night, during the winter, or in an eclipse. The distinction between "Sun" and "sun" is not about any confusion that might be caused, but about the distinction between that big sphere up there and a generic word for a star. I have no qualms with it being spelled "sun", as either is acceptable in the case of "our Sun", but the article was worded in a particular way and you came along, insulted me, said I was wrong when I was right, and have been stubbornly insisting so ever since.
2) "Wikipedia is not a dictionary." You are quoting Wikipedia articles when trying to define words. Allow me to point you to a better place for that. The term "Missing Sun myth" was coined by Carl Jung, with whose works you are apparently not as familiar as Skysmith is. You then came along, assuming some vast experience in the field, and vandalised this article and all articles linked to it. I have never seen the phrase "missing sun motif" (nor "versions of [it]", for that matter) outside of what you have done here on Wikipedia. Some might call using Wikipedia to coin such neologisms "original research". "The word motif is also used in other articles to describe the same situation. No other article uses the word myth in this way." That is only the case since you made it so, going around editting other articles that included references to this. Also, I don't appreciate your taking credit for my use of the word "motif", since you have not added anything of note to this article, only started and persisted with an endless dispute over it.
3) Again, "Missing Sun myth" is a term used (with that capitalisation) by the noted psychologist Carl Jung, so your personal views on the subject do not matter. You clearly came up with the new name on the spot because your request for it to be moved wasn't going well for you and so you decided to change the wording so you could get your way.
The people who voted on the VfD for Missing Sun myth favoured the deletion of a copy-paste article. Most made no comment on the title, and I'm sure they would have voted to delete it and move this one back to its original position had they been properly informed on the issue, but sadly you and Ril managed to keep outsiders in the dark as to the nature of that dispute and the fact that you had been trying to find a sneaky way to enforce your PoV for weeks now.
Just my two en ;).
elvenscout742 23:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1) You completely misread the policy in question. It does not say "any old sun" in the example but specifically the sun that we know about here. To the contrary, in cases where we are talking about "any old sun" then our sun would be capitalized to specify it as such. You have the policy completely backwards.
2) The other articles using motif to describe this most certainly are not that way because I went around changing them to make them wrong. That is a bizarre and reckless accusation. Your claim that you have never seen motif used in that way is meaningless, as your lack of experience in the field is not the yardstick by which all mythology content in Wikipedia gets measured. In fact it is getting rather clear that you need to do some serious remedial reading on the topic.
3) I did not come up with the name to get my way, I changed the name because I noticed that it was using the word myth rather clumsily. A search for pages in Google mentioning the term "Missing Sun myth" finds only copies of old Wikipedia content. The only page with the terms "Missing Sun" and "Jung" has missing sun lowercase and does not have the word myth after it.
As for yor claim that "I'm sure they would have voted to delete it and move this one back to its original position had they been properly informed on the issue", that is purely wishful thinking, and, moreso, plain denial. Several people specifically commented on the title. Gabrielsimon even disagrees with you now. The problem here is that you are unwilling to admit you were wrong. If you honestly think you could prevail changing the name to whatever you want, put an article RfC up on it, and you will see that you are wrong. DreamGuy 09:21, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

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'm on the Mediation Committee, and I nothing to Mediate here. It should go to RFC first.
Some of the users on this discussion page should be admonished to avoid personal remarks.
I suggest that an experienced writer with some knowledge of ancient mythology take a look at this page, which was moved from Missing sun motif to Sun gods in mythology by me and given a new intro based on what little this middle-aged man thinks he remembers from his schooldays. Uncle Ed 02:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
While the move is one that is theoretically suitable, there is already an article solar deity, which is the more suitable recipient of the title "sun gods in mythology", this article only describes situations regarding a specific motif of those mythologies. So I have moved it back for the time being and redirected Sun gods in mythology to Solar deity. ~~~~ 07:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing the move. I suspected there was an article about sun gods somewhere, but I didn't realize it was called "solar deity". If there was a link in missing sun motif, I must have missed it in my haste :-) Uncle Ed 11:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name change from Missing sun motif to Sun gods in mythology

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 ~.

  1. Mainly because we already have articles about solar deity, and this just addresses solar eclipse/winter explanations. I have moved it back, and redirected Sun gods in mythology to Solar deity, because this is clearly more appropriate given its title. ~~~~ 07:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Dear Lord, how bizarre... the missing sun motif is specifically a certain subtype of a much, much larger group of solar dieties. Moving a page about a theme of a sun that goes missing in various myths to a page about sun gods in general would be like moving Zeus to Gods in charge of their pantheons, Lithuania to Countries that start with the letter L, or Gerbil to Furry animals in biology. It serves no useful purpose and is contrary to the specific topic the article was created to discuss. DreamGuy 09:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

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)

1) Do you understand the differences between a myth, a motif, and mythological? Saying it's "more than" a motif and that it's "mythological" as if that word were somehow different or more than doesn't really make sense.
2) Yes, I would agree that the article should talk about more than eclipses and winter... but then the article already does specifically mention the disappearance of the sun at night.
3) I'm not horribly opposed to the idea of merging this with a more comprehensive look at solar dieties.
4) As far as the concept that it should be capitalized, you should read the appropriate section of the Capitalization guide and see the clear example showing that merely being a sun in the sky does not make it an astronomical context, it's discussing actual astronomy or space sciences that does. Arguing that absense from the heavens is a clear astronomical sense is a little out there, as astronomy obviously has no way of handling the concept that the sun would just go missing... because, ya know, we'd fly out of orbit and freeze to death and stuff... clearly not what's being discussed.
DreamGuy 10:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
1) myth is a sacred narrative. Motif is a recurring element that has symbolic significance. There's a clear difference, even if particular examples may be borderline.
4) The relevant section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (celestial bodies) suggests to me that I'm right, but could I suppose be interpreted differently. In any case, the merger with solar deity mentioned above would get rid of the issue. (While we're on the subject, sun god is clearly a case for primary-topic disambiguation; and also "sun god" is probably a more common usage than "solar deity", so maybe the article should be moved there.) Rd232 15:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

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)

[edit] Best. Edit. War. Ever.

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)

[edit] context context context

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)