Word/quotation of the moment:

yod-dropper [1]

(Previous quotes)

ALL keys matter (response to the scale-wandering rendition of the national anthem at CPAC 2021) The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large Lame duck à l'orange (AKA canard à l'orange) It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. [...] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world. — Washington Irving, Knickerbocker's History of New York Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço. For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap. — José Saramago, Death with Interruptions / Death at Intervals It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort. — as opposed to by what? Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people. — It's Happy Bunny When poppies pull themselves up from their roots and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset – don't follow them. — Slavko Janevski, 'Silence' And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization. — Stanislaw Lem, Return from the Stars The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church. — (commonly misattributed to Magellan) In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. — from the WP article Nancy Dorian Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. — from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown Ecce Mono Keep Redskins White! "homosapiens are people, too!!" a sprig of spaghetti "I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law." awkwardnessful anti–zombie-fungus fungus "Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)

Template:Annual readership Template:Annual readership Template:Annual readership Template:Annual readership Template:Annual readership Template:Annual readership Template:Annual readership Template:Annual readership

This is just to let you know that the Wikimedia ZA AGM will be taking place on 25 September 2021 See below for more details.

• Time: Saturday, 25 September 2021, starts at 10:00 to 16:00. With intermission at 13:00
• Location: held digitally online this link

Something I wondered re List of natural satellites: do you have the source for it being numbered Makemake I already? Over there it is, but at Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons it is not. (And I guess that list ought to have the other DPs added, but maybe to avoid a profusion of colours all the dwarfs should get the same one?) Double sharp (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no I don't. Maybe I assumed it. We could replace w a dash.

Yes, I agree it makes sense to have the same bodies in the list and at dwarf planet. And yes, maybe all but Pluto (or all but Pluto and Haumea) with the same color; since Pluto has 5, it might be nice if it continued to stand out.

Should Minor-planet moon really have the moons of DPs? Or should we treat it as equivalent to SSSB moon? For #Triple system, I would think they should be arranged by parent body, so the reader could see at a glance that they're triple systems. You can sort by name, but that doesn't produced unified cells for the parent body. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The status of DPs is a bit ambiguous, isn't it? They're explicitly not small Solar System bodies = minor planets, but they get minor planet numbers. Given this ambiguity, I think they should stay (and, after all, the provisional designation for a new satellite of Pluto would use the minor planet number, just like it would for a non-DP). Agree on sorting. Double sharp (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MP has been retired as a category for classification, so I suppose anything with a MP number is a MP. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder when the conception of unqualified "planet" become generally that of major planet. In 1867 it was still alright to call minor planets "planets". Metzger et al. argue that the shift only came in the 1950s when it was understood that asteroids are geophysically not like planets. Admittedly they are arguing against the IAU definition here (Stern and Runyon are coauthors of that paper), but they do back it up with a lot of historical sources. Double sharp (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, even in 2006 tiny NEA Hermes was a "planet"! Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Making Pluto continue to stand out on its own, without larger Eris, feels a bit too close to the pre-2006 situation for my taste (in the sense of giving Pluto a planet-like status by itself among TNOs). Pluto and Haumea seems less bad. Or perhaps I should just go and find more colours. XD Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: indeed, it doesn't seem to have ever been universal. I've noticed minor planets being called 'planets' in fairly recent material too. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading Metzger et al., I think they are reaching quite a bit in their conclusions. Whenever "minor planet" is used as a subset of planets, Juno was always a planet, even though geophysically it would not have qualified. So clearly no one was thinking about the conception of "planet" they advocate. If they did, you'd have expected that Ceres would have been kept separate from the other asteroids historically (as in a way it is now as a DP). But if any were, it was the first four together, including clearly non-planemo Juno. (Not that we can blame them, since in the 19th century, who could have known the asteroids' shapes?) Even by the time we get to Singer (1954), he distinguished planets/protoplanets from asteroids based on whether they were surviving accreted ones or fragments, in which case we get planets Pallas and Vesta, which is again not Stern's concept since they're not round anymore. And even Metzger et al. admit that from the 1960s onwards evolved Pallas and Vesta have also been called planets, just to a lesser extent to Ceres! (It also seems more defensible to me, since even though Pallas and Vesta are not round anymore, they certainly have past planetary geology.)

But I do like the fact that their work has collected all these sources. And yes, "minor planet" still seems pretty common currently. :) Double sharp (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suppose we could either go with separate colors for bodies that have more than one moon, or separate for each but just not bother to make them very distinct. The more colors, the more difficult it will be to make the article accessible to the color blind. Not that this is ever likely to be a FA. — kwami (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get Eris, Haumea, and Makemake (used by NASA that one time) and Sedna (made it into Unicode), but is there use of that Gonggong symbol yet? Double sharp (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, are symbols only used in astrology that important? At least the planet symbols still sometimes appear in astronomical contexts.) Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonggong might just be software. But all of the planetary/asteroid symbols are used almost exclusively in astrology. Vesta's was even invented by an astrologer, in the 1970s. (And the fact that it took that long for someone to come up with a practical symbol suggests that the symbols had hardly ever been used for astronomy.) I don't see any planetary symbols in the ref you linked to, apart from 🜨 and ☉. E.g., Jovian masses is M_J, not M_♃. I'd be interested in documenting astronomical use, but from what I've seen they seem to be used almost entirely for astrology.

BTW, do you know if ⛢ was originally an astrological symbol? It's explanation is astrological rather than mythological. Also, it would be nice if we had a date and who came up with it. — kwami (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The data points for the eight major planets in the graph on p. 10 are labelled with the traditional symbols (⛢ for Uranus). I agree, they're not used consistently (so Jovian masses is still M_J), but it's interesting to see them used at all so recently (2016).

⛢ was suggested by Johann Gottfried Koehler, as a sign for platinum (but also to be used for Uranus). Maybe to extend the correspondence of the seven ancient metals with the seven classical planets. I think this is Bode writing in the Astronomisches Jahrbuch, apparently of 1785 (but cover page also gives 1782) (p. 191):

Endlich bin ich noch auf eine schickliche Benennung und Bezeichnung unser neuen Planeten bedacht gewesen. In der oberwehnten Abhandlung habe ich, da wir doch nun einmal bey der Mythologie bleiben müssen, bereits den Namen Uranus vorgeschlagen. Uranus wird bekanntlich für den Vater des Saturns, so wie dieser für den Vater des Jupiters gehalten. Ich bemerke auch mit Vergnügen, dass verschiedene Astronomen diese Benennung billigen. Unter andern schrieb mir neulich Herr Prof. Lichtenberg: „Ich denke der Name Uranus ist gut gewählt. Ich habe einmal im Scherz Asträa vorgeschlagen, weil man sagt, sie sey (und es ist leider! in gewissen Verstande so) aus der Welt gewichen und dem Himmel zugeflogen. Aber freylich ist Virgo schon eine Asträa. Ich werde in den hiesigen Kalendern etwas davon unter einen eigenen Artikel mit dem Namen Uranus einrücken lassen, er wird auch ins Französische übersetzt.“

Wegen eines Zeichens schrieb mir Herr Inspector Köhler: „Sie haben mich befragt, was man dem neuen Planeten für ein Zeichen geben soll. Ohnstreitig das von der Platina del Pinto, * Nur Schade, dass dieses zur Zeit noch kein allgemein angenommenes Zeichen hat. ** Lassen Sie ein Chymiker urtheilen, ob folgendes schicklich und den Eigenschaften und Bestandtheilen der Platina angemessen sey: ⛢ oder ⛢. Letztere Lage würde ich ihm deswegen geben, um solches nicht mit dem Zeichen der ♀ zu verwechseln etc.“

Die Platina, oder das weisse Gold, ist, wie die Chymiker finden, mit Eisen vermischt, also wäre das vorgeschlagene Zeichen derselben angemessen, und könnte zugleich sehr gut zur Bezeichnung unsers neuen Wandelsterns dienen. Nur deucht mir, dass die senkrechte Stellung desselben ⛢ dem Auge in der Reihe der übrigen Planetenzeichen besser gefallen würde, als die liegende, und dass es dennoch von den Zeichen des ♂ und der ♁ hinlänglich genug zu unterscheiden wäre.

* Eben diesen Gedanken habe ich schon ohnlängst gleichfalls gehabt.

** Der Hr. Graf von Sickingen hat in seiner Abhandlung von der Platina, diesem neuen Metall das Kometenzeichen (ein Stern mit einem Schweif) gegeben.

And a Google Translate with a few edits (don't trust it 100%, my German is rusty):

Finally I have also considered a proper name and symbol for our new planet. In the above-mentioned treatise I already suggested the name Uranus, since we must stick to mythology. Uranus is known to be the father of Saturn, just as Saturn is considered the father of Jupiter. I also note with pleasure that various astronomers endorse this designation. Among others, Prof. Lichtenberg recently wrote to me: "I think the name Uranus is well-chosen. In jest I once suggested Astraea, for it is said (and alas! for certain intellects it is so) that she has left the world and flown to heaven. But of course Virgo is already an Astraea. I will have it inserted in the local calendars under a separate article[?] with the name Uranus; it will also be translated into French."

Herr Inspector Köhler wrote to me about a symbol: "You asked me what kind of symbol the new planet should be given. Without a doubt that of the platina del Pinto [little silver of the Pinto river].* Just a shame that this does not have a generally accepted symbol at the moment.** Let a chemist judge whether the following is appropriate for the properties and components of the platinum: ⛢ or ⛢. I would give it the latter situation so as not to confuse it with the sign of the ♀ etc. "

Platinum, or white gold, is, as the chemists find, mixed with iron, so the suggested symbol for it would be appropriate, and at the same time could very well serve to designate our new wandering star. Only it seems to me that the vertical position of the same ⛢ would please the eye better in the row of the other planetary signs than the horizontal one, and that it would still be sufficiently distinguishable from the symbols ♂ and ♁.

* I have also had this same thought for a long time.

** In his treatise on platinum, Count von Sickingen gave this new metal the comet's sign (a star with a tail).

Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice. Basically like astrological use, labeling a chart.

Thanks for the Uranus source. I'll add it to the article. I like how they use the planetary symbols for the days of the week.

platina del Pinto, BTW, was just the Spanish name for platinum. It was only described scientifically 30 yrs earlier. I suspect that might be the reason it was chosen -- new planet given the symbol for a new element. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any astrological use for Quaoar and Orcus yet, BTW? Double sharp (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're not actually astrological symbols, just planetary symbols that are mostly used by astrologers. They weren't created for astrology.

I've seen Moskowitz's Orcus and Quaoar symbols in two unrelated astrological programs: Astrolog, which even has a WP article, and the Polish software Urania, which uses a bunch of weird symbols. Urania uses the Orcus symbol (which is an O-R monogram) for Makemake! They're just weird (even for astrology). But Astrolog is about as close to a standard as there is in astrology. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a nice way to think about them; I'm convinced. So, I've added the Quaoar, Orcus, and Salacia symbols to the articles. (If Salacia is not in Astrolog, feel free to take it out again.) :)

I guess his planetary-moon symbols wouldn't be much used then, because they're not really useful for terrestrial astrology. Has anyone tried to use medium-large asteroids like Interamnia that there are symbols on his site for?

Are Varda, Varuna, and Ixion also used? Double sharp (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I've seen Salacia or any of his other designs in use (as opposed to a mention in a list), and I'm not about to pay for astrology software to check! (Also, Varda isn't Moskowitz's design.) There is a free 'Astronomicon' font that includes Eris through Orcus, that was designed to work with Astrolog. You can see all the bodies there. Since both are free and well designed, they seem to be popular. Some pay software have custom fonts that they sell for $30 a pop (in addition to the commercial price for the software), and they're typographic hacks. Just a money mill, I assume. I've got a PDF of what appears in them, or at least most of it, but no way to tell from that what might be notable.

I just created a new Astrolog chart that includes all the TNOs (at right). I left out Pholus, Earth, Sun and the "theoretical" planets.

As for the moons, someone took his idea for the Galileans but used lower-case Greek letters -- they look much better that way. I don't like the Saturnians, apart maybe from Dione. But yeah, can't imagine much use for them apart from maybe a logo.

I love his constellation symbols, but can't find any use. — kwami (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took out Salacia. Who designed the Varda symbol? And where can I see those alternate Galilean-moon symbols? :)

I love his constellation symbols too! Double sharp (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Varda, I don't know, it was just on my list and I just thought it was appropriate. I was tempted to upload the inverted Pluto for Orcus, but doubt there's any need. There's also 8 arrows pointing out radially for Chaos, which is easy to remember, but again probably no need.

The l.c. Galileans are shown on his 'Sightings' page, last img from the bottom. — kwami (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, thanks. Could we have a ref for the Varda symbol at Astrological symbol, though? Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good one, but enough to show it's not my invention. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I'd like to see that. In any case, by some definition it's not like astrology sources would often be particularly good. :) Double sharp (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There actually are RS astrological sources that describe things like that. I have some for the asteroids (often Earth-crossers) and centaurs that were given symbols in the 1970s and 80s. But these days there's also a lot of proposals on the web with no provenance. — kwami (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, is it Zane Stein? Double sharp (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, but I can ask if he knows. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: yes, it was him. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I created lower-case versions of the Galilean symbols, if you're interested, over at Commons. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's going to be our cut-off for astronomical symbol? I ask because previously we had only Haumea, Makemake, and Eris among the new ones (because NASA used them), but you mentioned Sedna in the text. Also we now have the symbols in the infoboxes for Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, and Gonggong as well (IIRC you added Sedna and Gonggong, and I added Orcus and Quaoar based on precedent), matching the idea that they've become more or less standard among those who actually bother with symbols anymore.

The symbol for Vesta in Unicode is, IIRC, a form that was only ever used for astrology, but we list that codepoint anyway in the astronomical symbols table. Sedna is in Unicode too, but not yet the others. And anyway the symbols for Ceres through Vesta are probably orders of magnitude more used in astrology than astronomy nowadays. So I can buy adding the TNOs that appear in Astrolog to some extent, but then again, no known astronomical use yet? Double sharp (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added Sedna because Unicode accepted there was enough attestation to encode it. Astrolog only supports the TNOs we already have, but also asteroids 1 to 4, Hygiea and Chiron. Chiron's been around almost as long as Vesta, and its symbol is just as universal. I'd say that's our cutoff -- unless you have an argument for something else? If we start seeing, say, Salacia or Psyche, I could see adding them later, but I haven't seen Salacia so far and Psyche is obscure (one of the "Apollo + 13" asteroids in use since the 1970s, but not mainstream). — kwami (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Psyche is already on astronomical symbol, though. As one of those originally proposed by the discoverer back in the day. Which is an interesting cutoff. (Does anyone in astrology use, say, Egeria? But it has a symbol from that period!)

Hmm. Good point about Chiron. So really, are we taking the scope of astronomical symbol as "the symbol has to be used in astronomy at least somewhere", in which case we shouldn't add any more TNOs, or look at who actually bothers with symbols rather than what's at this point a fringe use of them? If the former, we should probably not include Sedna on this article but leave it to astrological symbol. If the latter, then I can see adding Chiron, Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, and Gonggong to astronomical symbol as somewhat standard among those who tend to use symbols. Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an astronomer were to use a symbol for Vesta, it would almost certainly be the one in Unicode. I doubt many ppl even know it's not the original form.

As with the other DPs, Sedna wasn't intended as an astrological symbol. With it being in Unicode, I think we can argue that it's 'the' symbol for Sedna [even though there are some other obscure symbols out there that are astrological]. If we can put the utterly obscure symbols for 5 Astraea and 6 Hebe in their infoboxes, I think we can accept Sedna. I mean, we have the one at 14 Irene, despite the fact that it was never even drawn!

Sorry, Psyche has a different astrological symbol, which is just a distorted Greek psi. It's common among the subset of astrologers that are really into asteroids and centaurs (Psyche, Sappho and Amor are often seen together), but it looks like they're a pretty obscure group. It's possible with the upcoming Psyche mission we'll start seeing a symbol more, but I'm hoping for a variation of the old butterfly wing rather than a distorted psi.

I'm happy with where we are now. I wouldn't want to go any further, but I think a reasonable argument can be made for what we have. — kwami (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might well get your wish about the Psyche symbol, since it's the butterfly-wing that's on WP, and we all know how many writers get their info straight from WP. :)

BTW, 14 Irene was actually drawn historically (though well after the fact, in 1899; so perhaps someone simply made a form from the description).

So, what we have now as in the infoboxes (the dwarfs down to Orcus, plus Chiron), or as in the astronomical symbols article (only the IAU five)? Double sharp (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The DPs down to Orcus, Chiron, asteroids 1 2 3 4 10. Everything in the wheel chart above. (Really, Juno's practically useless, but you see it in every list there is. So I'm glad it's the one that got the blah-est symbol.)

I wonder if the Psyche logo was inspired by the old symbol. Though maybe it's just meant to be a reflection on a metal surface. — kwami (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make astronomical symbol and list of planemos consistent with that and add the remaining DPs, then?

I think the line that would make me happier is all those early asteroids, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. On the grounds that that is the limit where you can point to some kind of astronomical rather than astrological use. That's where astronomical symbol currently is at. For that reason I added Haumea, Makemake, and Eris only to List of planemos (can't be bothered to remember the actual title).

OTOH, the Chiron symbol has been in the infobox for that article for over a decade by now. But it has not been in astronomical symbol. So perhaps, there's some case for letting symbols only used in astrology but standard there be in the infoboxes but not considered strictly astronomical symbols. Double sharp (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would work. It's not just people interested in astronomy who read our planet and DP articles, after all. Whatever we think of astrology, they are part of our audience. Also, I suspect that a lot of people who think astrology is bunk might still be interested in having symbols for these bodies. As long as we're clear in the astrology article that it's pseudoscience (as we did when I checked yesterday), in most cases I don't see much point to trying to separate astrological from astronomical symbols. There often isn't a clear line. Some clearly are astrological (e.g. the symbols for imaginary planets), but as you noted, even the symbols for the main planets are discouraged by the IAU and used almost exclusively in astrology. So to me the point is not to avoid getting astrology cooties but, is the symbol notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia (like psyduck)? — kwami (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they are now all in Astronomical symbols#Symbols for centaurs and trans-Neptunian objects and list of planemos. I've added some text noting the blurring between astronomical and astrological symbols here, saying that although these symbols are mostly in use among astrologers, they are occasionally used in astronomical contexts too. (And anyway we head off in the lede by noting that really it's mostly astrologers that use any of these symbols at all, even the planetary ones.) Salacia is still left blank. Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. LOL at astrology cooties. :) Double sharp (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this font. Looks like they crammed everything they could in there, including some duplicates. They have Varuna and Interamnia, but even they don't have Salacia. — kwami (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their website says they do, but maybe they use another symbol. In any case, I guess it's indeed clearly not standard. :) Double sharp (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite strange to see Finno-Ugric peoples now being redirected to Finno-Ugric countries, since "Finno-Ugric peoples" is a very well established term in ethnography (no less so than, say, Slavic peoples or Turkic peoples), and the non-linguistic characteristics shared by certain Finno-Ugric peoples were studied extensively as well. On the other hand, "Finno-Ugric countries" is a rarely used term (as it's not a political union or anything like that, and Pan-Finno-Ugrism is a rather fringe ideology). Finstergeist (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to connect to the developing modern sense of ethnic identity. We could return it to 'Finno-Ugric languages', since it's defined by linguistics rather than by ethnicity. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no doubt that "Finno-Ugric peoples" is a quite frequently used term. But is it an ethnographic topic? A topic in the sense that there is more to it than just to label the ethnic groups that happen to speak Finno-Ugric languages? –Austronesier (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's definitely a topic at least in Russian ethnography (there's even a peer-reviewed journal), and I think the situation with English-language sources might be similar. Overall, much like with Celts, Slavs etc. language is a defining factor, but non-linguistic characteristics are being taken in account too. Finstergeist (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Celts, Slavs, Germans, Finns (in the Russian sense) etc. are traditional races. "Finno-Ugric peoples" are a pseudo-linguistic construct. The term is just shorthand for "people who speak Finno-Ugric languages". Without linguistics, it wouldn't exist. — kwami (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe (and so wouldn't "Semitic people"), but my point is that it exists nowadays, and not only in linguistics. Finstergeist (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It exists as a pseudo-linguistic category, and as a term of convenience similar to 'Khoi-San people', 'Papuan people', etc. If you want to write an article similar to 'Semitic people', where you note how the term is used but that it has no ethnographic meaning, I have no problem with that. (@Austronesier: do you?) But if you want it to be a list of the various "Finno-Ugric" peoples, with photos of what "Finno-Ugrics" look like, and sections on "Finno-Ugric" religion, then no, that would be pseudo-science.

I suspect that the term may be a modern replacement for "Finns", expanded to encompass the Ugric peoples that the Finns are linguistically related to. But I wonder, why are the Samoyeds excluded? — kwami (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, we give all TNOs as accepted DPs to Salacia. I'm wondering, though, if it's really right that we include Salacia. Has Grundy yet called Salacia a DP? In the Grundy source you gave me, that finds out its higher density, Salacia is still just called DP-sized. So should we really give it the same weight as Gonggong, Quaoar, Sedna, and Orcus as a DP if even that paper doesn't accept it? It seems even weaker than Orcus as a candidate. Orcus is at the lower end of the transition range, and its density is unimpressive (it could easily be 1.4 g/cm³ within current uncertainties), but at least it is bright. Salacia is below the lower end, has the same unimpressive density, and is not even bright. Actually it is the darkest large TNO.

Or is the idea that objects below the lower end (900 km) of the transition scale can be included if something suggests that they might be DPs (so Salacia has its density possibly in its favour, but so far 2002 MS4 has nothing known, and it'd go in if we found its density to be high)? If so, then I'd point out that 2013 FY27 at albedo 0.17 is brighter than Varda and getting pretty close to Orcus at 0.23. If a body initially in the transition range managed to collapse due to some weird thermal history, then it should be smaller now, having closed up a lot of pore space, surely? In back-of-the-envelope fashion, a 900-km diameter body with 50% porosity has total solid volume about the same as a 720-km diameter solid body, which is not far from 2013 FY27. Double sharp (talk) 10:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about Salacia. I didn't want to be unreasonably inflexible and exclude it, since they revised the density upward after the primary pub we've been using that excludes it. But it would be OR to include it as a DP by default as well -- personally, I'd prefer to leave it in limbo, not demonstrably a solid body but not obviously excluded either, until we get sources that come down on one side or the other, or state directly that it's indeterminate with present evidence. So if you want to remove Salacia where I've included it, I'm not going to second-guess you. If it turns out that Salacia's density is near the lower end of its range of uncertainty, or Orcus is near its upper end, that combined with the diff in albedo would clinch it for me. But what if Orcus is at the low end and Salacia at the high end? Then I'd wonder if there's something wrong about our understanding, or if there are more exceptions than we've anticipated. At that point I'd probably conclude that Orcus is not a DP, and is relatively bright for some other reason. But you're right: if we're going to cue off of what RS's label a DP, then AFAICT Salacia does not qualify. — kwami (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll probably remove it then, since if "indeterminate with present evidence" was enough, then probably 2002 MS4 and a few other medium-large TNOs with unknown densities could also fall under that. I would indeed wonder if this understanding was wrong if Orcus was at the low end and Salacia was at the high end, but as it stands now I'd rather go by what RS's label as a DP rather than second-guess them for Salacia for now.

Has the paper about the orbit of 2013 FY27 I come out yet, BTW? Would be a useful data point. Double sharp (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, took Salacia out of the lists with the big eight TNOs (plus Ceres and possibly plus Charon) at dwarf planet and list of planemos. If I've forgotten any, feel free to tell me (or change it yourself). I think the wording at the latter re Sedna stresses that it's just about picking strong candidates: I'd have no problem with adding back Salacia if an RS called it a DP or at least a candidate, of course. Double sharp (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, haven't heard anything on 2013 FY27. Just emailed someone.

I put Salacia back in the lead of the DP article, where we talk about the largest of the possibly 120+ DPs having moons, as Salacia's the cut-off for having a moon. I don't think that conveys the idea that Salacia *is* a DP, do you? — kwami (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might to readers reading too quickly, because it used the word "objects" right after talking about how many DPs there could be; but I just replaced "objects" with "candidates", which should solve even that. Double sharp (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: even among the round planemo moons, 16 out of 19 actually have diameter greater than 1000 km. Tethys, the smallest of the sixteen, has a diameter of about 1066 km. The only stragglers are Enceladus (504 km), Miranda (472 km), and Mimas (396 km) – yet between Miranda and Mimas lies Proteus (420 km). Not to mention that Miranda is so battered that it looks like it was badly glued together after having been broken. Therefore, I have to wonder if the 400 km figure that came from Mimas is even valid for icy satellites and bodies with such a density. Naturally the transition for them should occur at something significantly lower than 900 km, but it seems eminently possible that shape at ~500 km radius even for very icy bodies depends a lot on history or at least distance from the Sun (comparing Enceladus with Miranda, or Mimas with Proteus). And I suspect that if Saturn had preserved a Galilean-like satellites arrangement (so Mimas and Enceladus did not exist, and the only round-ish body in this range was heavily battered Miranda), we would've been a lot slower to assume a 400 km threshold, and may not have ever thought of it at all. Double sharp (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That symbol was changed to the mathematical operator because the earth symbol as a subscript is not legible on many systems. It appears as an illegible blob. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, this edit. Might want to chat with Lithopsian. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to optimize WP defaults to a particular user's fonts is not a good idea, since users are going to be optimizing against each other. Better to stick to Unicode unless there are actually accessibility issues. You can always change your browser font size. — kwami (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The *default* display on Apple products (at least, MacOS and IOS) make the subscript earth an illegible blob. Cannnot distinguish between mass(earth) and mass(sun). Ignoring the problem is essentially saying "It looks good on my screen, if a large chunk of the readership can't understand what's written, it is their problem to fix, not mine." The change was deliberate after considerable discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the best solution, then. But whenever we make a hack to correct an error in an OS, other OS's suffer. God knows there are enough hacks on websites to compensate for MS. But they're best avoided when possible. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kwami, I've just noticed that in April you redirected the page 'Ngunawal language' to 'Burragorang language' and I'm very curious to know why. I've never heard of a 'Burragorang language', apart from an odd, unsourced, mention in Dixon (2002) that seems to suggest it as an alternative name for both Gandangara and Ngunawal, and of course the use to refer to Gandangara people living in the Burragorang Valley (late 19th and early 20th centuries). I can't see any justification for it having its own page, let alone taking over the Ngunawal page. —— Dougg (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I was following Glottolog, which calls Ngunawal + Gundungurra "Northern Inland Yuin". Glottolog tends to merge things like this only after analyzing word lists and finding inadequate reason to keep them distinct, or finding a source that makes the same determination.

AIATSIS says the following under Gundungurra [S60]:

Mathews published separate grammars for the Gundungurra and Ngunawal D3 but both of these grammars are drawn from the same material in his notebooks headed 'Gundungurra' (Mathews 1901 and 1904, in Eades 1976:6).
Based on his analysis of pronoun forms, Koch concludes that Gandangara (S60) and Ngunawal D3 are dialects of the same language (2011:18).

AIATSIS doesn't assign a name to the language, and Glottolog names tend to be arbitrary, so if I find something else in the lit, I'll generally go with that instead. Presumably I found 'Burragorang' in Dixon, and figured that since it was ambiguous between the two, it would be a better cover term than 'Northern Inland Yuin'. I find annoying long geographic dabs used as language names -- they tend to all sound the same after a while -- but I don't have any attachment to the name. What do you think would be best? — kwami (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glottolog and Koch are quite correct that the two varieties are very similar, were certainly mutually intelligible and no more different than, say, Australian English and General American English. But the differences are very important to the two groups, who consider themselves quite distinct peoples (again, much as with Australia and the USA). And as these are technical, linguistic uses of 'language' and 'dialect' I think it's best to have a page for each of Ngunawal and Gandangarra, and simply to state that they are very similar, and were most likely highly mutually intelligible. Not every level in linguistic classification schemes should get a page on WP... I note that there's no WP page on Macro-English (a Glottolog term). And I can't see any reason to have a page 'Burragorang language' as there is no Australian language by that name; as far as I know (from Jim Smith's work) it was only used to refer to a group of Gandangarra who lived (post-contact) on a reserve in the Burragorang Valley. Dougg (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an article on Macro-English, we just don't call it that. (Glottolog names are ad hoc and not notable.) I'm fine with moving the article to 'Ngunawal dialect'; I can create a stub for Gundungurra dialect. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw (here) that you edited Levantine Arabic in the past.

We have an ongoing debate about the content of the summary and the infobox on the talk page. As you are experienced it would be great to have your opinion.

Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@A455bcd9: Not kwami here, but my immediate third opinion first impression: stop WP:textwalling. Seriously. –Austronesier (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Austronesier:,

Thanks for your feedback.

What are you precisely referring to? My initial message on the talk page? If so, I'm surprised because another user who spontaneously came to give their opinion said: "The numbered organisation of points of disagreement meant I was always able to follow the points made by other users" Or are you talking about the tables with "Current version"/"Proposed version"?

Anyway, your opinion is more than welcome as well as you're a member of both WikiProject Languages and WikiProject Linguistics :)

Have a good day, A455bcd9 (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not going to read all that. It looks like the dispute has narrowed down to what's in the 'states' parameter of the info box -- is that correct? If so, I'd start a new thread so that ppl can follow what the issue is. If there's more to it, what do you consider the last good version of the article? — kwami (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kwami,

Yes way too long to read I'm sorry...

I've just created a new thread and summed up the remaining 3 contentious points here.

Please let me know if you have any question. Thanks for your help. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kwami,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to give your opinion. As there was a wide consensus from contributors + other third party opinions (including yours), I implemented most of the suggested changes.

WatanWatan2020, who did not take part in the discussion has just reverted them all ("reverting to original form. No consensus is reached."). He also reverted other changes that had nothing to do with the discussion.

I have no idea how to deal with this kind of behavior and I would love to get some help :) A455bcd9 (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: tried to help (thanks!) but got reverted themselves: it's frustrating... A455bcd9 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A455bcd9: Pretty simple, really: if they refuse to accept consensus, then they need to rv each of us, which runs afoul of 3RR. It would be better of course to resolve issues through discussion, but if they insist on escalating, they're likely to lose. They just reverted you twice and Austronesier once. I've now restored the consensus version, and warned them about 3RR. (That's the 2nd warning 3RR for this article, and they've been blocked before, so it's not like they don't know how this works.) I haven't touched this article in years, so these aren't my contributions, except indirectly through the discussion. If they rv me, report them to ANI, or I can. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! A455bcd9 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I don't know why the next sentence was deleted "Kisikongo is not the mother language that carries the Kongo (i.e. Kikongo) Language Cluster". This sentence summarizes the studies (see references). Somebody040404 (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's unintelligible. What's a "mother language"? What does it mean for a language to "carry" a language cluster? I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

BTW, if you're digging into sources, could you advise on which ISO and Glottolog lects should be included in the scope of the Kongo article? It looks like that needs to be revised. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map on Kikongo shows that Kisikongo is the mother tongue, that the other variants of Kikongo are based from Kisikongo, this is false because the Kongo cultural unit existed before the foundation of Kongo dia ntotila by Lukeni lua Nimi and Kongo dia ntotila was multilingual thus Kikongo of Mbanza Kongo (Kisikongo) was not the only spoken language, The name "Kikongo" is actually used for a cluster of related languages, including Kintandu, Kiyombe, Kimanyanga, Tsiladi/Ciladi, Civili, Kindibu, Kikunyi, Kibeembe, Tchibinda, Kisolongo, Kizombo, Kisingombe, Boko ´s Kikongo, Kihaangala, Kinsundi/Kisundi, etc. This is the reason why I have added the three sources that evoke Kikongo, the archaeology that has been done in some places of the ancient Kingdom of Kongo, etc. Somebody040404 (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That level of detail belongs in the main text. The info box is supposed to be a short summary of what's in the article.

I still don't know what you mean by "Kisikongo is the mother tongue". "Mother tongue" means the language you were raised with. Those are all mother tongues. If you mean the ancestral tongue, then that would be Proto-Kikongo.

You say the maps shows "that the other variants of Kikongo are based from Kisikongo". I don't see that either. All it does is give Kisikongo is an alternative label for Kikongo, presumably for Angola. I can remove that from the map, if you like.

We have an article Kongo languages that includes Vili, Sundi and the other varieties you mentioned. I added your map there as well. It might be that we want to merge all these articles into the main Kongo language article. That might depend on how intelligible they are. If people can't understand each other, it's probably best to have separate language articles, even if they all identify as Bakongo. The main Kongo language article would then be those varieties that are intelligible with standardized/literary Kikongo.

Maybe you could take a look at Kongo languages and advise which varieties in that list should have separate articles, and which should be covered in the main Kongo language article? — kwami (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by mother language I mean Proto-Kikongo. There are people Who think Kisikongo is the Proto-Kikongo. My bad I thought "mother language" also had the same meaning as "langue mère" in French. Yes, They understand each other but not so well (examples : Civili and Kimanianga speakers). Kituba already has its article. Let it stay like that because Kituba is grammarically different from kikongo varieties. It's a good solution to merge all these articles (Kongo language and Kongo languages) into the main Kongo language article. "it's probably best to have separate language articles, even if they all identify as Bakongo" This solution is also good but there are problems : Kikongo varieties and Kikongo ya leta (Kituba) are less and less spoken in Kongo Central even in the Republic of the Congo some Kikongo varieties are less and less spoken. Kisikongo is considered as standard Kikongo in Angola. In Cabinda it is Fyote. Two Kikongo varieties are used in Angolan TV news : Kisikongo and Fyote. Plus all the Kongos taken to the Americas came from all parts of the Kingdom. Somebody040404 (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assume that at least Yaka and Suku should not be subsumed under Kongo? It might be nice to keep the classification of all the varieties separate from the main article, if only for legibility. Whether best to call it "Kongo languages" or "Kongo dialects", I don't know. But I think some kind of split would be warranted. Still, I agree that many of the current language stubs might be profitably merged into the main article. Though I don't know which ones, exactly: according to Vili language, the Bavili were part of the Kingdom of Loango, not of Kongo.

"Mother language" doesn't have any meaning in English. I didn't know what langue mère meant in French -- I would've assumed it was langue maternelle. There is an English phrase "mother tongue", which is probably a direct translation of the French. It can mean either the language you were raised with, or the ancestral language of a community. There's even a journal Mother Tongue for people trying to reconstruct the ancestral human language (or at least looking at long-distance relationships). But when reading the Kongo article I didn't connect "mother language" with "mother tongue". Anyway, "mother tongue" isn't a technical term, and it's ambiguous enough we probably shouldn't use it if we're trying to be precise. It's usually better to paraphrase. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Yes, Yaka and Suku should not be under Kongo even if those in Angola consider themselves as Bakongo but those in DRC don't consider themselves as Bakongo. No, langue-mère in French means the proto language. Yes, Vili were part of Kingdom of Loango but they consider themselves as Loangos and Kongos. In the Kingdom of Loango there were Vili, Yombe, Kugni (or Kunyi), Lumbu, Babongo (Forest people or pygmies) and Punu. Vili, Yombe and Kugni consider themselves as Bakongo. Lumbu, Babongo and Punu don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Kingdom of Loango also had influence among Orungu people in Gabon but Orungu people don't consider themselves as Bakongo. Woyo consider themselves as Ngoyos and Bakongo, it's the same with Kakongo. It might be better to classify as follows : North Kikongo, West Kikongo, East Kikongo, Central Kikongo and South Kikongo https://llacan.cnrs.fr/fichiers/nigercongo/fichiers/Bostoen_KikongoNC.pdf. The name Kongo languages is better. Somebody040404 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That classification from Bostoen is a decade old. He's published a lot more since then, and Glottolog is based on his more recent work. From the 2012 pub, it appears that Vili and Yombe should be excluded from Kongo, regardless of ethnic affiliation. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misspoke! I just wanted to suggest that we can use this as a basis for classifying kikongo varieties according to their inter-comprehensibility, the localization also plays a role : North western or west : Vili, Yombe, Woyo, Ibinda, Kunyi…

North eastern or North: Ladi (Lari), Kikongo of Boko, Haangala…

The classification on the inter comprehensibility deserves a reflection.

Somebody040404 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. Both are of interest. Feel free to work on it yourself, if you're interested; it might take me a while to get to it. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're not counting Triton in that chart, because it would totally overwhelm everything (I just added some text about that, because the rest of the article agrees that Triton is irregular). But I wonder how it should be treated in the first place, since Triton's story is probably quite a bit different from that of most irregulars. It's not even irregular by the 0.05 Hill radius requirement, and Nereid is borderline: there's a reason why often they are excluded by a reference to "normal" irregular satellites.

Also, I find it a bit odd that Triton is so commonly considered irregular, but not Iapetus, which actually has a better claim by its orbit (being near the 0.05 Hill radius requirement). In fact, by the orbital criterion, Luna should be irregular too. So it kind of suggests that some people are thinking of the term as meaning "captured", rather than being about the orbit. OTOH Amalthea is probably captured too, because if it were a primordial satellite it would be as dehydrated as Io, which it isn't. Yet no one seems to call it irregular. Might be interesting to do a literature search on definitions. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know. The nice thing about the Wiki graphs, compared the PNG files I used to make, is how easy it is to adjust them for such concerns. I'm not sure how much the graph contributes either, so feel free to modify it as you see fit, or remove it if you think it doesn't contribute anything. — kwami (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating a separate article for that main term! I was always annoyed that a "Finnic peoples" article was missing. Good job. --Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]