Talk:Super Galaxy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] alternate term

What term would you propose instead of super galaxy? Yes you, who proposed deletion of the term.FX (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] simple term

This is a simple, almost self explanatory term. 45,000 references on Google. How much time and attention does it deserve? FX (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs redirect

for supergalaxyFX (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Added redirect for Supergalaxy. FX (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe how little effort some people put into research, and the great amount of effort they put into trying to delete articles. Amazing.

FX (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] improper naming

This is wikipedia, it should be super galaxy, not Super Galaxy, according to wikipedia naming conventions. 70.51.8.167 (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you call it giant galaxy? 70.51.8.167 (talk) 08:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Because there is no such term used anywhere

I'm getting more and more laughs over some of the user comments on the deletion page, wherever that is.

I think the misunderstanding is extremely absurd. Somehow, I don't know how, but somehow, there seems to be this belief, exemplified by the previous question, that I made up the term Super galaxy. Despite the abundant sources, all of which use the term, and the web links, which all use the term, and the other Wikipages that use the term ... well ... if you can't see the problem, what can anyone say?

I think I understand the critics of WIKIPEDIA at last. While we can see a vast and detailed page on anal fisting, the humble term super galaxy, which appears in the title of two Publications, in leading Astronomical Journals, is considered fair game?

It isn't a disagreement over the meaning, it is an effort to wipe the term from the site.

I pointed out that the term appears in other WIKIPEDIA articles, on the deletion talk page, but nobody responded. Instead I find a slew of tags, none of which have any evidence to back them up. Nor has anyone done anything to improve the page.

Is this normal behavior? FX (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] That may be a valid point

Where can one find the wikipedia naming conventions?FX (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the subtle irony, that is becoming more abundant, wikipedia naming conventions leads to a page that was deleted, rather than a redirect to whatever obscure reference page the information resides on.FX (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. ASHill (talk | contribs) 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)