Jump to content

Talk:Milky Way

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.33.68.50 (talk) at 12:45, 28 February 2017 (→‎Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleMilky Way has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 18, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 14, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
August 9, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus for changing the status quo. Arguments for changing to "The" have not shown even a rough consensus to overturn previous discussions. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following should be the first sentence of this article (with the first one being status quo)?

Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 10:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our is fine. We have had abundant discussion on this already; see above and see archive for this article: [1]. More generally, there are many more important issues at Wikipedia than this tiny one. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please summarize the main arguments? (Hypocrisy acknowledged, my arguments summarized below) Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm too busy. You can read the previous discussion. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should not have posted in this discussion at all if you unwilling to discuss? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Isambard Kingdom is referring to comments already made in previous discussions, which are plentiful, on this page and as such I think they are entitled to not spend their time repeating them.Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our per Isambard Kingdom. Consensus was arrived at by many editors of more than one discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. If it's been argued before, then my arguments below should be easy for you to tear apart. With that said, I contest that consensus has been reached at all. Plenty of ambiguous discussions with good arguments for "the" though. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either the or our would be acceptable to me. However, I have problems with the use of the term Milky Way to refer to the whole Galaxy. My view is that the article should be called The Galaxy or, possibly, Milky Way Galaxy. So I would prefer the first sentence would reflect this. To me, the term Milky Way refers to the band of light in the sky, and consequently to the Galactic disk, bulge and bar, but not the entire Galaxy. It is the entire Galaxy which is the subject of this article. including the stellar halo, globular clusters, gaseous halo and dark matter halo. TowardsTheLight (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As might be expected, this has also been abundantly discussed, though quite some time ago: [2], [3]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a way of background - the distinction between Milky Way Galaxy and the "Milky Way" was in a cleanup (I think I did) to reflect "One article - two things" and referenced to a college level text. But it was more recently changed without comment and what is there now no longer reflects the citation at the end of the sentence (fyi - same cite, newer text). It should probably be put back. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I put a cite to that book in. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The for a few reasons.

  • MOS:PERSON
    • The spirit of this policy is avoid first person at all costs as unencyclopedic.
  • MOS:SELFREF
    • The text of this policy says nothing about first-person pronouns. However, the spirit of what it does say is in-line with avoiding any references to "us humans". Every time there is an "our" in reference to something universal, you are referencing that both the author and reader are both human/living on Earth/whatever. This line of reasoning (among other things) is used in the FAQ's in Talk:Human which explain the lack of first-person pronouns in that article.
  • Precedent set by other articles
    • Human - as stated above, this article never refers to the fact that both author and reader is human.
    • Sun - "The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System.", completely comparable.
    • Moon - "It is the fifth-largest natural satellite in the Solar System,..."
    • Earth - "the Solar System", admittedly does use "...shifts in our view of the planet."
  • About the perceived triviality of this discussion:
    • MOS:PERSON doesn't explicitly say "our" is wrong. I am relying on perceived spirit of the policy. I think it could be clarified if consensus is reached here.
    • This would give a go ahead to enforce MOS:PERSON in many instances, including references to human anatomy, psychology, and evolution (see this list to get an idea) Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:47, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The for basically the reasons that Brightgalrs indicates. In particular an encyclopedia should be written without explicitly assuming anything about the author or the reader; the use of "our" is jarring for this reason. CapitalSasha ~ talk 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do assume a great deal about the reader re: MOS:JARGON, WP:TECHNICAL/WP:EXPLAINLEAD/Wikipedia:Write one level down, WP:AUDIENCE. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. The problem with your line of reasoning there it's a binary choice: either the reader is an expert in the field or they are not. Is it possible to write an article that perfectly caters to both of these? It is not. Or maybe a better answer is it is possible, but it takes two articles (Introduction to quantum mechanics vs Quantum mechanics). In Milky Way it is possible to cater to all readers regardless of which solar system they are from by using "the". As comical as that sounds, it explains the difference between the two audience assumptions. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note the word "explicitly" in my original response -- sure we assume certain things about what the reader is able to comprehend, but we don't tell them they are or are not an expert! CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The — Wikipedia needs to preserve it's policy of being entirely neutral and not assuming anything of the reader. Using the word our ruins that purpose, it makes the very first sentence of the article sound unencyclopedic and more of a story. If need be, instead of saying our solar system, it should be specified what our solar system is. Even though it is quite evident that most people who will be reading this article indeed like in this solar system, it is not up to us to assume that, and it does not make it okay to use such phrasing. --NikolaiHo☎️ 03:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The per User:Brightgalrs. ∞ Target360YT ∞ (talk · contribs) 09:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our or The equally valid. "Our Solar System" is a term in very common usage, if you read articles on nasa webpages they often refer to "Our Solar System". Our article Solar System uses The. However, this begs the question of which one, given that there are billions of solar systems in the Milky Way alone. I suggest keep the status quo and stop discussing this very minor detail ad nauseum. Polyamorph (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that "our" is common, but a NASA webpage is not an encyclopedia. I'm glad you brought up the ambiguity point. (I'll leave the question of "planetary system" meaning the same thing "solar system" aside) There is no ambiguity at all. First, you will never find a generic planetary system referred to as "the Solar System", just as Io will never be referred to as a Moon. Second, Solar System is wikilinked to the appropriate article, further eliminating any ambiguity. And please read my comments above about the perceived triviality of this argument, either way "it's trivial" isn't an argument at all. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 12:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to the NASA webpages, the world's leading authority on space science, was to show how commonly used the term is. Io most certainly is referred to as a moon. You're expending a large amount of effort over the use of one word, in my opinion that could be better spent on something else! Polyamorph (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, no one is questioning NASA's authority, but their websites are still not encyclopedias. To clear up the Io point: Io will never be referred to as a "Moon". "moon" yes, "Moon" no. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 17:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think more to the point is that Io would never be referred to as the moon. CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Europa has "...orbital and rotational energy are dissipated as heat in the core of the moon, the internal ocean, and the ice crust.". That's the type of reference I was referring to. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 13:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The. The use of "our" implies the existence of other solar systems from which this one needs to be distinguished. But the article solar system is entirely about a single system, uses "the" throughout, and includes nothing to suggest that the term "solar system" is applied to other systems. Maproom (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it should be noted Wikipedia is not an unacceptable source - WP:USERGENERATED. Acceptable sources on this do note the term "solar system" is applied to other systems [4].Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apart from any question of repetitiveness, this is storm-in-teacup stuff. Wasting time on trivialities is IMO as pernicious as deliberate vandalism, but if anyone feels that precision is vital even in incidental wording that readers could understand without explanation (which I could sympathise with) then at least get the subjects clear.
    The item contains four concepts to be distinguished: Milky way (what we see as a naked-eye manifestation of the galaxy in which we find ourselves, for practical purposes the only naked-eye galaxy relevant to this subject),
    galaxy (of which there are many, should anyone wish to distinguish any particular one),
    solar system, of which there are more by now documented than most of us have been keeping count of, and
    classes of observers, of which humanity is the only one immediately relevant (citation needed for any rival claimants to the title of "we" in this matter).
    So: the use of "we" or "our" is fine, just as we do not quibble about speaking about "my father" even though he generally is not anyone's chattel. It might help to consider the way Americans speak of "our country" or even "my country", even addressing Chinese or Brits. "The" is less specific and accordingly more chauvinistic, though it does little harm, even in failing to distinguish which solar system we mean among trillions and trillions, or alternatively suggesting that it is so superior that no other solar system deserves consideration. Most of our readers will be able to work out its identity from Solar system, Star system and Planetary system.
    Similarly, "our galaxy" is unambiguous, whereas "the galaxy" is either ambiguous or overweening. Milky way actually is not the whole galaxy, but who is counting?
    IMO the current wording could stay, but if enough people insist, we could say something like "The Milky Way is part of the galaxy that includes our solar system; specifically it is that part that is visible to the naked eye..." (except if you make allowance for the seeing in cities and submarines of course, but please, please...!) JonRichfield (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have obscured the main point being made here - that first personal pronouns shouldn't be used even for human "universals". Your examples (addressing the use of "our" in "our Solar System") would never be written in an encyclopedia, so I don't think they really hold. We have WP:PERSON that eliminates these personal-view types of things. Also, I have no opinion on if "Milky Way" refers to the view from the Earth of the galaxy that holds the Earth or if it actually refers to that galaxy itself. Though I will remind everyone that this discussion was started with "the" vs "our" in mind. But if it's grown to include "Milky Way" vs "Milky Way Galaxy", well that's fine too I guess. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean MOS:PERSON, not WP:PERSON which has no relevance to this matter.Polyamorph (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our because it forms a frame of reference. Although I agree with the The arguments above when it comes to wikipedia style, I believe too many people are now too savvy in concerns to the universe, that a majority of the population is now aware that there are other worlds and solar systems being investigated by science, and that there is a substantial risk of readers wondering, "What solar system are they talking about?". Our Solar System immediately grounds the reader into knowing that the article is talking about where we live. The only other way I see to do this is to include a reference to the Earth itself, such as The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains the Solar System containing the Earth StarHOG (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worth breaking MOS just for the reasons you list. With that said, I have no problem with something like "The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains Earth's solar system". As you can see, I don't think "Solar System" would be capitalized there. And I feel like this will inflame arguments about planetary system vs solar system. But it avoids first person, has your "frame of reference", and takes care of any perceived ambiguity (I still think Solar System is perfectly fine...). Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 21:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And by adding Earth you instantly solve this entire argument. You kill two birds with one planet.... StarHOG (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our. MOS:PERSON has two exceptions to not using first person pronouns: context which refer to the world as a whole and in scientific context. Since this article qualifies on both counts, it doesn't seem MOS:PERSON should be the basis for changing it. I'm not sure how MOS:SELFREF applies at all since it is about not including references to Wikipedia in articles. How is this a reference to Wikipedia? I think appeals to the spirit of policies is unconvincing. If an editor feels a policy should prohibit something, it seems the editor should first get that policy changed to reflect that prohibition and then use that changed policy as the basis to change other articles. In this case, it seems the basis for wanting to change this article is a desire that the referenced policies prohibited the style in the article. Klaun (talk) 21:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read MOS:PERSON a little closer, it mentions two idiomatic uses: 1) referencing modern society in historical articles, neither are applicable here and 2) the author's we for shortening proofs, explanations, step-by-step stuff, again not applicable; also the MOS says it should be avoided for passive voice. I thought I hedged my use of WP:SELF enough, but alright, here it goes. You are right about WP:SELF in that it is written warning editors against references to what they are reading (an article), how they are reading it (a web browser), and the website they are browsing (Wikipedia). But surely you can see how that can be extended to other things, like the language they are reading in (English), the species they are (Human), and then the place they are reading it from (Solar system, Milky Way). As for spirit vs letter of the law, these policies don't claim completeness in the examples they provide, which allows room for this discussion to clarify them. And specifying policy is exactly what we are doing here. Consensus built on this talk page and consensus built on a policy talk page are equivalent. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 19:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry but WP:SELF is completely irrelevant in this case. Polyamorph (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A policy such as WP:SELF cannot not be extrapolated to address this issue, WP:SELF refers only to self reference of wikipedia content. It's not at all in the spirit of the policy, it's completely irrelevant to it. Also the two uses that you cite from MOS:PERSON are examples only and not the sole limit of their possible use. The policy states that although "we", "us", and "our" should be avoided, they are not strictly prohibited. In any case, even if it the use of "our" was explicitly prohibited, which it isn't, the MoS is not law anyway and can be ignored if necessary. Polyamorph (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The. It matches the style in the Solar System's article and (in my opinion) reads better. Andrew327 15:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The, but in The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains the Earth (or similar). Frankly, storm in the teacup and all that, but if the problem is that "Solar System" is ambiguous even with a wikilink, that sounds like the best option. "Our" does seem somewhat unencyclopedic, and should be avoided if not needed. (bot-summoned) TigraanClick here to contact me 16:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our. Avoiding WP:BIAS is good, but wikipedia is so far only used on Earth and even with the prospect of interplanetary travel its readers won't leave our Solar system soon. The term Solar system is often used to refer to a Star system (even by NASA), so without our the reader might not understand which solar (star) system the description refers to. “WarKosign” 08:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not think the problem is one of WP:BIAS - none has argued AFAICT that "our" is an "earthist" term discriminating against martians or something similar. The argument is WP:TONE, in particular articles should generally not be written from a first- or second-person perspective - even though the disambiguation issue is a plausible reason to use "our". TigraanClick here to contact me 17:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be discrimination against Alpha-centaurians. As an alternative to our, how about something like "The Milky Way is the galaxy that contains the Solar System (which contains Earth)" ? “WarKosign” 15:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment since this RfC has now run its course, I have requested closure of the RfC by an uninvolved editor here. Best Polyamorph (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our – This choice of pronoun immediately establishes that our solar system is not the only one in existence, which is a very fitting way of introducing the concept of a galaxy, as a bunch of solar systems lumped together by gravity. If we change to "the Solar System", it begs the question "which one?", and Grandiose Caps Don't Make Our Solar System Any More Notable Than Any Other In The Galaxy, Really. — JFG talk 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Closure - An editor closed this discussion but I specifically asked for the consensus to be assessed here and as such have reverted their closure until another editor is able to close it properly. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2017

Section Contents: change "The nearest such planet may be 12 light-years away, according to scientists." to:

"The nearest such planet may be 4.2 light-years away, according to a 2016 study." [1] 213.33.68.50 (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Anglada-Escudé, Guillem; et al. (2016-08-24). "A terrestrial planet candidate in a temperate orbit around Proxima Centauri". Nature. 536: 437–440. doi:10.1038/nature19106. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |last2= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milky_Way&oldid=767872160"