Talk:Venetia Burney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

If anyone finds anything regarding her opinion on Pluto being disregarded as a planet, it would be very interesting.—→Vitriden 01:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the article, interesting, to the point and well writtenFrank van Mierlo 23:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This article is being reviewed to examine whether it meets the good article criteria. See WP:GA/R for more information. RHB Talk - Edits 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Delisted[edit]

See comments that came to this consensus here. Nja247 (talkcontribs) 13:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved[edit]

For the record, it seems reasonable to list this page at the name under which she is notable; compare Alice Liddell, not Alice Liddell Hargreaves. This is common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Does not merit an article[edit]

Science trivia is still trivia. WP:ONEEVENT. jnestorius(talk) 12:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

removing prod. The opportunity to suggest the name of a planet, successfully at that, occurs somewhat rarely. I don't think that WP:ONEEVENT is intended systematically to exclude all reporting of rare occurrences, rather the creation of articles about a person who has come to notice solely because of one relatively normal event which happened to involve them. The article includes coverage long after the event and continued recognition as in the naming of one of the instruments on New Horizons. --Mirokado (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • First, it's not a planet. Second, we do not need nor should we have an article on every person who ever named an astronomical body and is not famous for anything else. This is a trivia article, as Jnestorious noted, and violates WP:BLP1E. She didn't name the planet, the Lowell Observatory did and only after receiving over 1000 suggestions. She is otherwise a non-notable person. If her suggestion hadn't been the one that was used, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely concur with Mirokado. BLP1E does not apply here due to the rarity of the event and continued attention in multiple reliable sources the subject of this article continues, and will continue to receive. Its status as a planet, plutoid, minor planet or anything else is unimportant here. Pluto is the only body named by a person and not for a person. Coverage of her is biographical in nature therefore a biographical article is warranted here. If there is disagreement, take it to AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Rarity? I know you can look up at the night sky and see <insert Carl Sagan voice> billions of billions of astronomical bodies. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll take the smiley at face value! If I remember correctly we can see up to a few thousand objects depending on viewing conditions, rather more with a telescope of course. In astronomy, we "discover" things with new properties or of which only a small number are known. We tend to "catalogue" things which we "reckon up by dozens" like stars, galaxies, minor asteroids. The discovery of Pluto was clearly significant, at the time as the discovery of a new planet, as the discovery of an object long searched for and in retrospect as the first of a new class of objects. The number of stars we can see, or even the possible number of so-far-undiscovered objects orbiting other stars, is really not relevant here. --Mirokado (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Over 3,000 hits in the last 30 days! Seems a valued article. We can do without people who just want to reduce Wikipedia to their own level of ignorance. Motmit (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There are 8 named planets, 2 named dwarf planets and all the rest have numbered designations. Those 8 planets were named by the Romans. Ceres and Pluto were named by individuals. Ceres was named by its discoverer Giuseppe Piazzi who already has an article. Venetia warrants an article as well. I hope this resolves Hammersoft's concerns of lots of these article cropping up. It just doesn't happen.--RadioFan (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Before anyone else quibbles: Uranus is a Latinised Greek name, suggested by Johann Elert Bode who has an article for other reasons anyway. Neptune is a Roman name suggested by Urbain Le Verrier, who deserves an article for discovering Neptune, and Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve, who also has an article for other reasons. Some other distant dwarf planets also have names or proposed names, but the custom is generally that the discoverer (which may well be a discovering group) propose the name, such as Michael E. Brown and his group who have discovered several. There will begin to be so many of these that their discoveries will start to become routine. Any associated article will be justified by the discoveries or other activities so the point you make is still valid, that we do not expect dozens of articles similar to this one. --Mirokado (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Also worth noting that until the IAU ratifies a name, it should be used as no more than a redirect on Wikipedia to the article on titled with the international (aka boring number) designator.--RadioFan (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We can do without people attempting to comment on contributors rather than content. Back to the point; this article could easily be a redirect to the appropriate section of Pluto. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The search term could of course be resolved by a redirect but the possibility of an inferior destination for the redirect seems another distraction in this context. --Mirokado (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Why? We do this all the time. If we point to Pluto#Name there should be no confusion. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Any remaining objections to this being turned into a redirect? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I oppose a merge/redirect of this article. It is well sourced and meets notability criteria.--RadioFan (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • How? Try this; remove any mention of her being involved in the naming of Pluto. Read what's left. You can do this without changing the article by making the changes and previewing it, without saving. Report back here with your observations on what is notable in the remaining biography. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Obviously all the objections mentioned above apply to a redirect too so yes they are "remaining" objections. I am not persuaded by any of the arguments presented here for suppressing the contents of this article. While I accept that if there were a decision to delete this article then clearly the title should become a redirect, with the section in Pluto expanded and retaining the current picture (currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Venetia_phair.jpg), I will not accept redirecting it as a way to avoid a deletion discussion. --Mirokado (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a redirect will lose a lot of the information in the article because including it in the Pluto article as complete as it is would be undue importance 'in that article. I agree with Mirokado. Shsilver (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes - the beauty of Wikipedia is that we can split details out of articles so that those who don't want that detail do not have to read it, while those who want to read more can do so. That is logical simple structuring of information. Combining "planets" and subsets of biography into one article just makes it cumbersome and has all sorts of other disadvantages. We really do not need to worry about the total number of articles on Wikipedia.Motmit (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Any information relative to the naming of Pluto is already present in the Pluto article. Any information not relevant to the naming is in this article...and isn't notable in and of itself. So why the need for a separate article? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You've made this point several times. There was no concensus to delete nor is there concensus to merge this article. Can we move on?--RadioFan (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Could you respond to my 17:20, 18 July 2012 request above please? Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Merist an article[edit]

There is a clear consensus against what is one editor's personal opinion. Continuing to argue is just wasting the time of useful content editors Motmit (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The implication being I am not a useful content editor? Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

in charity, Motmit might have meant it was also a waste of your time. Pity, because I think you are correct. It is a) not just one editor's opinion, and b) a strange thing to have its own article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

    • It sure looks like the discussion has run its course. Continued repetition of the same points over and over isn't likely to change that.--RadioFan (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)