Talk:Sh2-279/Archive 1

Non consensus change article title

@Laurdeci: You clearly haven't thought this through. There is absolutely no consensus gained to make the drastic changes of name, which as the Running Man Nebula is very dubious at best. It is not recognised in places like SIMBAD [1], and there is not true reference to support the uncited statement (except as the title of the alleged article . Laurdeci change here has little or no support by other Users, and should not have made such an edit. If true, how does anyone find this page?

This is yet another example of individuals gaining notoriety but naming some celestial object in which there is no actual common usage, and by others promoting it, just cements it as true when it is in fact dubious, inconsequential, unciteable and fictional. (In this case hanging by one thread of some random article that someone stumbled upon.)

These unsubstantiated changes should be immediately reverted. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that a formal request to move the page back? You should add the tags then. In passing, I note that there's no problem finding this page: NGC 1973, NGC 1975, and NGC 1977 all have redirects pointing to this page (and have had since 2006). The name "Running Man Nebula" is very common, as a quick Google search will reveal. -- Elphion (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Without bothering to consensus rightfully this should be reversed now, yet we should await Laurdeci response to hear any justification.

You are clearly not listening. These are not primary sources. Also the NGC Numbers are just as common - if not more common than the dubious given name. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm listening very carefully, and I still don't understand why you call the given name "dubious". Do you "doubt" that the name is in widespread use, or that people can use it without violating astronomical protocol? (I haven't done a scientific poll, but I suspect most of the astronomers I know couldn't identify "NGC 1973" off the top of their head, but would recognize "Running Man" instantly.) Primary source does not mean professional source or even authoritative source; it refers to the origin of the information. SIMBAD is a wonderful resource, but it doesn't go about coining names. It is a (fairly) Reliable Resource (in the WP sense), but it is not the primary source of the NGC numbers or of the common names. It is a professional resource primarily for professional astronomers, and is not necessarily a good source for popular names or even historical catalog IDs. For the purposes of ascertaining common names, Google and sources like APOD, Astronomy Magazine, Sky & Telescope, and the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada are all quite germane, in a way that SIMBAD is not. In this case they make it quite clear that "Running Man Nebula" is a popular name in widespread use for this object. It should be mentioned in the article even if it is not the eventual title of the article. Yes, the NGC numbers are widely used in technical articles; but that does not make them "common names". This particular object is a bit problematic anyway. For the major NGC objects I agree in general that the primary article ought to use the NGC number for the title, although there will often be exceptions ("Andromeda Galaxy"). But in this case, since more than one NGC number is involved, "Running Man Nebula" is an obvious choice, with cross references from the individual NGC numbers. There are plenty of citations available, and the citations do fit the WP definition of Reliable Source. -- Elphion (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

My objection is that the source of the name was seemingly Patrick Moore in 1996 with the Caldwell Catalogue, using these name to promote the list. It was only done to promote the legacy of Moore. The name does not exist before this, but he was unaware of the other use of the name for another unrelated nebula. There are individuals who are attempting to game the system, and are deliberately promoting names for ego, gaming or in just selling books. By using this name is basically promotion, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. The names are dubious because their is no base source and the stories are unverifiable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the name you're referring to above is Moore's "Cave Nebula", not the "Running Man". (This discussion is going on in at least two places!) I don't think such ambiguity obtains here. Regardless, what matters is the usage, not the origin. The origins of many names and words are murky; "origin unknown" appears in dictionaries all the time, yet the words are still included because they are widely used (indeed, even if they aren't widely used). I understand (and generally share) your distaste for names coined purely for commercial purposes, but I doubt that's what's going on here. Moore engaged in self-promotion, yes (virtually all authors have to in order to get published), but even Moore never published the Caldwell list. S&T thought it filled a void and ran it; and it has been picked up by amateur associations around the world. It has since become an endemic part of the amateur scene. You call it "promoting Moore's legacy"; I would say rather "drawing more people into astronomy". People don't want NGC numbers, they want names. And that audience must be addressed: without popular support, government grants for science dry up. And even names coined commercially are fair game. Mentioning them does not violate WP:PROMOTION, which says explicitly that "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style", not that they can't be mentioned. -- Elphion (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere

This article is incorrect if read from the southern hemisphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.215.11 (talk)

It's not clear what the objection was; I don't see any such problem in the current version. -- Elphion (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Clear misunderstandng with article title

In response to this edit here [2] is as follows;

Pushing my buttons with such edits makes me only dig in my heels even more. My crusade, as Laurdecl so crudely points out made here [3], is only to correct the inaccuracies here. Your personalising of the issues here only discredits you, and sadly weakens your arguments. Two options exist here. Either Laurdecl is actively promotion of the name change, and hence, are not neutral, or instead all Laurdecl is doing it to just cheese me off. It is clear that the quoted source you have added are only to promote the common name. It is extraordinary that doing an ADS search finds only one reference to this name out of one hundred references.[4]

Only one word Laurdecl response truly p*sses me off, and that is the word 'holy' in your recent reply, and this is because Laurdecl exposes their lack off true objectivity. Not listening to reason and creating a manifest of false accusation immediately exposes falsehoods in your edits.

Logically, the undue manifestation of the common name you suppose is ultimately flawed. If you knew the facts, you would not have so mislead. Let's explain...

The reflection nebula that you presume assume is the nebulae named the "Running Man Nebula" is actually only NGC 1977, and is not the other NGC nebula of NGC 1973 and NGC 1975, which collectively makes up the HII region Sh 279. So the actuality the alleged "Running Man Nebula" is only a third part of the Sh 279 complex. (See edit [5], and the original producer of this page [6] saying "The three NGC objects are divided by darker regions." The actual origin of the original title before you changed it come from here, which says "The 1970s are often overlooked. In particular, the beautiful grouping of reflection nebulae NGC 1977, NGC 1975, and NGC 1973") The origin of the dubious and tentative "Running Man" name comes from the statement of the APOD link [7], where it says "Taken together, the dark regions suggest to many the shape of a running man.", which is a suspiciously a dead link.[8] found by the link here. [9] Without necessary the required validation, the name change made and argued by Laurdecl is proven invalid.

Hence forth, the article should be actually formally named Sh 279, and not as the "Running Man Nebula", which is a sub-component of the Sh 279 complex. Else, it should be two separate article, being Sh 279 and "NGC 1977 or "The Running Man". Your name suggested name change here is therefore invalid, and will be reverted unless Laurdecl can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary.

More extraordinary, and the destruction of your argument, appears in the article itself, where it says "NGC 1977 is excited by the hot young star 42 Orionis." This ultimately supports that NGC 1977 is actually "The Running Man Nebula", which is a part of Sh 279. Hence, the name change instigated here [10] is again clearly invalid.

Furthermore, the clearly aberrant behaviour of Laurdecl, shows likely some conflict of interest. Whilst I cannot prove this beyond doubt, I have to assume go faith as per WP:GF. On the available evidence, this clearly suggests some doubt to accept the article's name change. This latest edit here[11] by Laurdecl saying "As I said, this is the article title", when this individual had already : changed the title without consensus, added references that cannot independently verify either the source or validity of the source than duplication of the deception, and clearly has also made the desire to instigate the changes, cannot, therefore, be proven as likely true independent sources.

Therefore, the statement that the word 'tentative' is perfectly valid, unless proven otherwise. (Which I revert for a second time.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you assert that "Running Man" refers only to NGC 1977. The numerous references to on the web (starting with the APOD entry you refer to, but certainly not ending there) refer to the entire reflection complex, upon which the dark lanes of the eponymous running man are superimposed. And dead links are not suspicious; they happen all the time. APOD was not citing that link as the origin of the name or even validation of it; it was merely highlighting one of the many amateur sites that feature it, a practice they perform frequently to engage amateurs. I don't know where the name began (it was certainly not that website), but it is now nearly the universal popular ("common") name for Sh 279. An analogy with language seems appropriate here: usages are coined, and if they catch on, they become part of the language. "Running Man" has certainly caught on. It is not the technical catalog designation, so I wouldn't expect to find it in SINBAD or in many professional articles, but it appears in many accounts of the nebula for the popular press, including standard references like Astronomy Magazine and Sky & Telescope. You can ascribe nefarious commercial intent to those publications if you wish, but that doesn't change the predominance of the name, and there is no longer anything tentative about it. It's not the universal name you ask for, but universality has never been a requirement.

Since the Sharpless designation covers the entire complex, a reasonable alternative (as you suggest) is to use that as the primary title of the article, with the NGC numbers and "Running Man Nebula" all redirecting to it. But the article should include "Running Man Nebula" (in bold) as we do with other prominent common names for deep sky objects (e.g., "Pinwheel Galaxy" sub Triangulum Galaxy).

-- Elphion (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Response to: "I don't know why you assert that "Running Man" refers only to NGC 1977."

This is why. SIMBAD for NGC 1977 has the name as an identifier.[12] (The other NGC nebulae here do not have this name.) The source of this is in the SIMBAD biblio here [13] is D. Garner in the Canadian Journal (RASC) of 2010 (2010JRASC.104..243G)[14], whose small pdf "HII regions in Orion - The Running Man." is here.[15] According to him, there are 11 separate objects in Sh2 279. (this is a good article, but the reasoning is not referenced and the Sh2-279 information is completely missing.)

The final evidence is just looking at the image... the 'running man' shape is only part of the image, which beyond is together Sh2-279. That is the formal 'name' in finding it. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I made an error with the star illuminating the nebula. It is 42 Ori, but the name I've seen is c Ori / HD 37018.[16] Star c Ori is the main designation here not the Flamsteed number. (With 52 identifiers there is reason for confusion, especially being brought up on HD numbers.) Thanks for the correction. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh no! My COI has been discovered; NASA has sent me here to push your buttons! I offer a sincere heartfelt apology for referring to your rudeness and your zealot-like primary-sources-only attitude as a holy crusade. Perhaps holy inquisition is more accurate? Thanks!! P.S. saying "this editor is shilling for amateur astronomy sites" and then saying "but WP:GF" isn't assuming good faith. Laurdecl ^talk 05:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Formal Request to Change Article Name

@Anthony Appleyard:I have rewritten this article under the cloak of Sh2-279, which should be the article name as we adopted for Sh2-155. (Although there has been strong debate here, I feel this would no longer controversial. I also pinged Anthony Appleyard who did the previous revert on Sh2-155.) As such, I have requested this be renamed from Running Man Nebula to the more global Sh2-279 within requested move. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Brand New Edit

@Laurdecl:@Elphion:@OtterAM: I have just completely re-written the Running Man Nebula article in which we have been debating for a while. I have now included twelve 13 references, and have removed some that relate to astrophographer's website. (Three of those have been retained.) I have notably used similar references to those in Sh2-279 Sh2-155. Furthermore, as the article Sh2-155 was recently changed, so it should to be consistent with this decision. I think that the Running Man Nebula should be changed instead to Sh2-279. (The reasoning for this is apparent from the new text.) Here, as we now know, the Running Man Nebula is a sub-section with in Sh2-279. I would greatly appreciate a general checking of this work for obvious flaws, and some useful comments to improve this further. If you do edit this page, could you please leave the reference intact and uncompressed until we can get a stable agreed version. Also some further additions could be from this excellent 2008 paper entitled "The Orion Molecular Cloud 2/3 and NGC 1977 Regions"[17] where it says NGC 1977 is the reflection nebula, but also says the whole complex. OtterAM's great last edit on Sh2-155 has similar context to this paper.) Note: One main weakness I can see is the relationship with the NGC numbers which seeming differ in opinion depending on the source. We could add perhaps another heading entitled "NGC 1973, 1975 & 1977", and then add associated text? [Again, the S279 designation is not quite right, as the first catalogue number stop in the 140s. Sharpless 279 is seeming never used.] Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Arianewiki1: Nice work on the article! It looks good, although I haven't looked at it in too much depth yet. I don't have a strong opinion about the name, but would be amicable to a move to "Sh2-279" as you suggest. This is close to a 5x expansion of the article, and with a little more we could submit it to DYK. Cheers, OtterAM (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: I noticed the mixup between Sh2-279 and Sh2-297. Can you check that everything's fine with the text you wrote that's now on the Sh2-297 article? Thanks, OtterAM (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@OtterAM: Its getting really late for me, but I'll improve the missing text in both documents. Much of the Sh 279 material is from the 2008 paper entitled "The Orion Molecular Cloud 2/3 and NGC 1977 Regions"[18]. I'll do the new Sh 297 basics after that! Thanks for the fixes! Cheers. Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Italian article

There is a substantial article about this object on the Italian wikipedia [19] and short articles in 21 other languages. Unfortunately, it's not possible to link the articles because they are under the name "NGC 1977". If someone else has more experience with wikidate, maybe they can help straighten out the situation. OtterAM (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• One can easily link to another article with a different name; however, the Dutch article says that NGC 1977 is an open cluster which includes 1973 and 1975. This article says that Sh2-279 consists of three nebulae of which NGC 1977 is one, so it's not clear to me what you are talking about with "this object". BTW, what does "and bright nebulae" in the lead mean? It produces an ungrammatical sentence. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)