Talk:List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies

List

Someone has had a lot of fun making up non-existent adjectival forms for the small moons and asteroids, but they don't belong in an encyclopedia. We should be listing forms that people actually use. If anyone has ever used the word "Trinculonian" outside Wikipedia, I will eat my shoe. Sources please, or I will return with a flamethrower! Arsia Mons (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the ones in italics are unattested. That said, a form like Daphnidian is useful; the average reader would have no idea that a regular derivation of Daphnis would have a second d in it. Derivations of Old Norse and Inuit are iffier.

Some of the others have limited use; I was surprised to find just now that Mimantean is used at the JPL Cassini site. It took a special trip to the library a few years ago for me to find that word, and perhaps due to WP, it looks like it's now caught on outside Greek concordances. — kwami (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the Classical names have adj. forms, though not always the ones here. So too many of the Shakespearean/Popean ones. I've deleted all italicized names I couldn't find in Google Books. Umbrielian only comes up once, on a page that is unavailable, so I've italicized it. Italicized some other rare forms, though 'rare' is rather arbitrary. — kwami (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Great work, but it would still be good to add references to show where the information actually comes from, if possible. That way we can be surer that these are real words and that they are actually used. Otherwise we're just going on good faith... Arsia Mons (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was more work than I wanted to do at 2 AM. The remaining adj. can be found easily enough, though granted, a couple hits might turn out to be inappropriate as refs if I were to dig deeper. Also, I didn't review all the adj. that were not in italics at the time, so they should be verified as well. I'd say add a ref for any new words going forward, and eventually we can work back through the existing ones. — kwami (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to add refs. Some have better refs in the individual article talk pages, but I'm not searching those. I'm leaving a few blank, as it's too much trouble to sort through other uses of the word. E.g. 'Thebe' is an alt. form of 'Thebes', but finding the adj. specifically for the rarer 'Thebe' is a chore. ("the city's name was changed to Thebes in honor of Thebe, ... In keeping with Theban custom ...") Thankfully I had already ref'd 'Ionian' for Io rather than Ionia a few years ago.

I'm picking refs almost at random. In cases where the ref turns out to be bad, there may well be others, so the word itself shouldn't be tossed w/o checking further. — kwami (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Awesome work! Arsia Mons (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

other notable planetoids

Vanth (Orcus I): Vanthian?

10199 Chariklo: ? (fem. 'Chariclean')

451 Patientia (exp: patientian)

532 Herculina (exp: herculinian)

19 Fortuna: ?

54598 Bienor (expected Bienorian or Bianorian)

702 Alauda: Alaudan?

5145 Pholus: pholian? pholusian?

8 Flora: Floral, ?Florian

90 Antiope: ?

288 Glauke Glaucian?

323 Brucia

490 Veritas

10370 Hylonome || (exp: Hylonomean)

8405 Asbolus || Asbolean?

| 172 Baucis ||Baucidian?

| 655 Briseïs ||Briseidian?

| 627 Charis ||Charitian?

| 410 Chloris ||Chloridian?

| 202 Chryseïs ||Chryseidian?

References

Wiktionary

if this isn't on Wiktionary, someone should copy it there. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This list begins with explanatory information beyond the basic list information usually found in Wiktionary. I found exactly one list of demonyms in English Wiktionary: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:French_demonyms. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You should examine how much prose is in some of those Wiktionary appendices, sometimes there is alot, like with wikt:Appendix:Numbers 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I copied less obvious ones, and also the ones of the larger moons, but to individual articles. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of earthly and lunar

User:Wavelength edited Earthly in the table to earthly. When I put earthly into the list I capitalized it to conform with the capitalization of Lunar, which indicated to me that entries in the list should all be capitalized whether they are routinely capitalized in ordinary writing or not. Either lunar should be written with a small initial letter or earthly should be capitalized to be consistent. Which should it be? --Fartherred (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Both words should be uncapitalized (earthly and lunar).—Wavelength (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably either could be capitalized to emphasize that they're referring to the worlds rather than having their more commonplace meanings, but usually they're both uncapitalized. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I take stock of the discussion so far, it seems that kwami has no strong objection to lower case initials for both and Wavelength definitely favors lower case. I also favor lower case and, since we are determining the style of the box rather than following the style, I will put lunar in lower case as an interim condition pending further discussion. --Fartherred (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Now we come to the case of capitalizing moon and making it a name for Earth's moon. Both the capitalization of moon and the importation of Luna from Latin to serve as the name of Earth's moon are modern inventions. In Shakespeare's works moon was not capitalized. Diana, Cotys, Cynthia, Hecate, Lat, Luna, Minerva and Selene are potential names for Earth's moon. Each of these was at some time a goddess in some way associated with the moon. The ancient Europeans were apparently fond of making the moon a goddess. For my part I would be happy to call Earth's moon anything, including Lateforsupper, if only people would agree to give it a name other than Moon. I have occasion to refer to Luna with respect to planets and asteroids in the case of potential future economic development. I would rather avoid confusing Moon with the moon of some other planet. However, it seems against policy for Wikipedia to take up my cause and promote Luna as a name for Earth's moon. So we are stuck with a capitalized Moon in the box as best representing current practice. --Fartherred (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Herculinan?

• See talk:532 Herculina#demonym

  Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

  • solved at wiktionary:talk:Herculina Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Earthican

I think Earthican should be added as a demonym for Earth. It's what Earthlings are called in the year 3000, according to Futurama. I feel like that show is iconic enough to add a word to the lexicon. Tomjoad187 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of adjectivals and demonyms of astronomical bodies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425125638/http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=2971 to http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=2971
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620002838/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease20050118-2/ to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease20050118-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815072223/http://dtek.tv/281-tragedies-hamlet-and-antony-cleopatra to http://dtek.tv/281-tragedies-hamlet-and-antony-cleopatra

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Do we need listings for words that aren't actually used?

A very large number of these are words that are never actually used. Do we really need an article for these? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should go through ever entry which does not have a reference to at least one person every having used that adjective. Otherwise it's just a list of examples of Latin and Greek conjugation. But I'll wait a week or two for opinions and for people to add references, before I some serious weeding. Fcrary (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

We certainly do not need this article. It should be deleted quickly, before the Rigelians discover it and ridicule us. Eric ^talk 13:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Nearly all original research

As far as I can tell, virtually everything in this article is someone taking names and converting them to adjectival forms on their own hook. That's original research. If there isn't a citable source for the adjective, it doesn't belong in the article. Also, the citations should be to use of the adjective in the context of the astronomical body. The reference for "Hydra (Pluto III)" being "Hydrian" dates from 1843. Hydra wasn't discovered until 2005. So this isn't a reference to anyone using "Hydrian" in the context of the moon Hydra. The whole article is full of things like that. Fcrary (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Granted, a word should be attested. The name is the name, though. If the name has an adjectival form, it has an adjectival form. If the name has both mythological and planetary uses, the adjective applies to both as well. It doesn't matter how old it is. In fact, older references establish that a word exists outside bad SciFi, where you get all sorts of nonce derivations (e.g. 'Mimian' and 'Mimasian' for Mimantian). Where you have exceptions are things like Mavortian, since the archaic/poetic name 'Mavors' for Mars is only used in the context for warfare, not for the planet, and so the adjectival form is only used for warfare.

BTW, I am reducing the list quite a bit. I expect to reduce the moons down to the planetary-mass and Martian ones. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly my point. First of all, the content should not be derived by the editor. If the editor takes a name and applies the linguistically correct rules to produce an adjective, that's original research. In the math and science articles I'm involved in, we get complaints about editor-generated but perfectly valid derivations, or even simply plugging numbers into an accepted equation. I think the later is going too far, but a derivation should really have a source other than a Wikipedia editor.

Second, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If the content is simply a list of names paired with adjectives, how is that encyclopedic and not a dictionary?

Third, I think the actually noteworthy entries are where the astronomical and non-astronomical (e.g. predating the discovery of the object) differ. Listing examples of grammatical rules in multiple languages is not noteworthy. When we're specifically writing about astronomical objects, I think it's necessary to show that the adjective is used in the context of astronomy, not just that it's been used in other contexts. The really notable items would be things like Cytherean, which Sagan introduced because Venusian was incorrect and he thought Venerean sounded too much like venereal. That sort of history makes the entry go beyond a grammar lesson, and has some chance of being noteworthy and encyclopedic. Fcrary (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That was indeed your point. Did you read my first words, "Granted, a word should be attested"? If so, why is your 1st para still arguing that a word should be attested?

As for your 2nd para, that argument would apply to many of our list articles, and is completely separate from issues of OR.

For your 3rd para, if you can actually show such a difference, I agree it would be interesting. It would be a very short list, though. I disagree that the word has to be attested in astronomical use. A word is a word is a word. You wouldn't argue that a word couldn't be used in chemistry because it's only attested in physics. The astronomical bodies share their names in their adjectival forms with their mythological forebears -- I can't think of a single exception. ('Cytherian' is not one. It's an ancient appellation of the god Aphrodite/Venus, and was applied to the planet at least a century before Sagan, but that's a distinct phenomenon from adjectival forms of the god Venus not being used for the planet Venus.) — kwami (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say the simple existence of a word does not mean it must be "attested" in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is not the place to list every conjugation, declination, etc. of every word in every language. With an article on the adjectival forms of names in various languages (which we have) and the name itself, the adjective is obvious. Readers can work it out for themselves. If it isn't trivial and obvious, and the editor is doing it himself, then that is original research.

Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a separate issue. But I think it's a valid one. Lists on Wikipedia are always a grey area. I think they really need some added content to make them encyclopedic. As a random example, List of United States cities by population puts together multiple pieces of information (population, trends, population density, etc), from different sources, and allows a comparison of them from city to city. If it just listed the names of the cities in order of population, I wouldn't consider it encyclopedic. That's why I think this article should only have entries which supply more than the name/adjective pair.

As far as the mythological origins are concerned, I'm less interested in the origin and what might be the correct term in astronomy. I'm concerned that some (many) of those adjectives have never been applied to an astronomical object. We have no idea what astronomers may do in the future, and we shouldn't guess. They may not use the mythologically-correct adjective. Take the case of Venus. Astronomers do not uses Venerean. Cytherean and Venusian are basically all you'll find in the literature. That's not something you would have predicted in advance. I'm fairly sure no one has every used the adjectival form of Aegaeon in the astronomical literature. By listing Aegaeonic, we are predicting that, when and if it's every used in an astronomical context, the astronomical community will pick up the grammatically and mythologically correct word. They might not, and we aren't supposed to guess. (Oh, yea, that's another policy problem. No crystal ball.

Okay, you start off by saying this is OR because it's not OR, then go downhill with straw-man arguments about having every inflection in every language, which has nothing to do with this article, and then that RS's are OR, and then that the article shouldn't be about what its title says it is about. I think my head's going to burst. I didn't bother to read the rest. — kwami (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Look, I have multiple problems with this (actually any of the lists of adjectivals) for many reasons. I just put original research as the section title for brevity. I'm seriously thinking of nominating the article for deletion. Original research does cover anything which isn't trivial for the readers to reproduce on their own (i.e. if anyone can do it, it isn't original research.) If the readers can do it on their own, then there is no added value, in terms of content. It's the added value which is critical to make a list something encyclopedic. I list of words with no added content is a dictionary entry. Actually, not even that, since a list of words doesn't even give a definition.

I also think it's important to stick with the astronomical usage. That doesn't always follow the linguistically correct rules. When listing the words for astronomical objects, we ought to stick to what adjective is used for the astronomical object (grammatically correct or not.) Adjectival forms which have never been used in an astronomical context don't belong, since that's making a guess about what someone in the future will do. And the adjectival form is used much less often than you might think. In professional journals, you don't see people talking about the "Titanian atmosphere". It's phrased as the "atmosphere of Titan" or "Titan's atmosphere." For widely studied bodies, you might be able to find an exception or two. For the small moons and minor asteroids, I don't think you could find a single use of the adjective.

So I think we should scrap all the entries which are simply name/adjective parings with no added content, and also scrap all the entries which are future predictions of what people will use for astronomical bodies. Either that or delete the entire list. I'll post some notices on the relevant project pages tomorrow, and try to get more editors to offer an opinion. Fcrary (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your first argument, that anything that isn't trivial is OR, means that WP needs to be deleted.

Your second argument has some merit as a POV issue. But note that our saying a word exists doesn't mean that people have to use it. Cynthian has been used for the moon, but that doesn't mean you'd ever see it if you didn't look for it. All we're saying is that the word exists, for people who might be interested in which words exist for these concepts. This isn't a style guide telling readers that they should use them.

Yes, there might be some irregularities, but they're going to be additional words, so that doesn't negate the established forms. E.g., "Venusian" was coined due to taboo-avoidance of "Venerian". But that doesn't mean "Venerean" can't be used as an adjective for the planet.

As for objecting to lists of adjectives/demonyms on principle, again, that would be a mass request. This is hardly the only such list. — kwami (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)