Nomenclature[edit]

Page does not make mention of the suggested name "Wolftopia" and the shortlived internet backing it had, but page still refirects from searches for "Wolftopia". Should "Wolftopia" be mentioned therefore? 31.124.168.245 (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but most of the attempts to add it have been heavily promotional rather than factual, not backed by reliable secondary sources, promoted as "the name" of the star, and with a tendency to be thrown in with undue prominence such as the lead sentence. Some of the sources that are currently in the article make mention of the name, but describe it as apparently not much more than a joke, with even the discoverer playing it down. Is it going to be notable in another year or decade? Still, we have some pretty obscure historical proper names in other star articles, so with the correct references it can certainly go in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think it should be added. It was never mentioned as an actual possible name by Cukier, or even one he was considering. It was just said to have been a "suggestion" by his brother, who's name isn't even referenced. Is that really relevant? Breaktheicees (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

considering how popular it is on tumblr and youtube, we might as well reference that it was suggested. If we put it in the article, people might stop trying to stick it in in random places. BookSquared (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you’re already to the point where Google is providing the main page over external discussions, when searching for that name. It’s too late. It’s a name for the planet now. And Wiki is supposed to share all even vaguely useful information about a given topic. It’s better to include it as a footnote, than fight it and insight controversy.

Besides, if this generates interest in the topic, maybe one or two more people will grow up to go to school for it, with the unrealistic expectation that they too will get to name a planet something “cool”, some day. 2601:154:C100:E670:7D6B:B8B9:1FD4:121A (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because it's sourceable and there is clearly strong support for having it, despite one editor having decided that it mustn't be here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclature RFC[edit]

There is disagreement whether the name "Wolftopia" should be included in the article. I am of the opinion that it is not notable to the article itself as it was not mentioned as an actual possibility for the name of the planet; in the interview where it is mentioned, Cukier says in a passing comment that it was a "suggestion" by his unnamed brother. I'm opening up a request for further comment and feedback. Breaktheicees (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this sounds too trivial to be worth putting in the article. PopePompus (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I normally might agree, the name has gained a lot of popularity on tumblr and youtube, and I believe putting in at least a passing comment about it having been suggested might stop people from continuing to try and put it in incorrect spots in the article. BookSquared (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to put it in, and agree among ourselves to remove it in a year? PopePompus (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if the name hopefully loses it's popularity, yes. I think it's wise to keep it for as long as it's relevant, and re-evaluate every year until we can remove it. BookSquared (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People adding the trivial detail in incorrect locations is not a reason to add it nor does it make it any more relevant. This doesn't happen very often. If need be, we could simply request that protection be added to the page. Breaktheicees (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, it is very popular on tumblr and youtube, and we have precedent to add relevant suggestions for names in the petition to call it Sophie. Not saying it has to stay on the page forever, but a small mention of it would not be amiss. Especially if it's not obtrusive to the rest of the *actually* relevant information, which most of the previous edits attempting to add it were. BookSquared (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is "very popular" on Tumblr and Youtube still doesn't make it more than trivial to the page. Are there even references to support this? The petition to name it Sophie is relevant because there was a high-profile campaign supported by notable artists; this does not give precedent to add trivial information about a name that was never considered a real possibility or campaigned for. Breaktheicees (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, when you google Sophie, this planet does not come up on the first page. When you google Wolftopia, it comes up immediately. Wolftopia is not even mentioned on the page, and yet it's the first item in the google search. There's no reason to *not* put it on the page, other than you think it's trivial. In the same vein, the campaign to call it Sophie is trivial, as the planet is not going to *be* named until it's confirmed to be an actual planet. Adding Wolftopia having been suggested is not going to detract from the article. It's not going to obfuscate important information. It's relevant enough that googling Wolftopia will bring up the article in which it's mentioned, the wiki itself, a not inconsequential amount of pictures of the planet. Adding Sophie as having been suggested for a name was just as debated as a back and forth, with it being added and removed until it was finally put in the body of the text after Cukier having not been given the chance to name it. Not even bothering with whether the name is popular at all, it is relevant to the development of people's interest in the planet. BookSquared (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think would think that searching Google is relevant to this situation at all. Obviously, Sophie is a fairly common name whereas "Wolftopia" is much more unique. There really isn't anything else that could be reasonably linked to that term. Just because it is a unique term doesn't make it important or relevant. Again, the Sophie campaign was high-profile and has multiple references that prove so. This passing comment is not. Breaktheicees (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This passing comment is high enough profile, apparently, to have been added and removed several times over since the wiki page was made. And again, it's not going to detract from the article, obfuscate important information, or otherwise lead people into unrelated tangents. BookSquared (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not managed to make a case that shows that it is relevant with verifiable sources - see WP:NOTE. Regardless if it's "not going to detract from the article", that is still not a valid reason for it to be added. When's it's added, it's generally because people think it's funny and/or are vandals trolling a wiki page. Nothing more, nothing less. As said before, if it becomes such an issue that protection needs to be added to the page, it can be requested. Breaktheicees (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic for not wanting it to be added to the page is as stable as BookSquared's logic on wanting to have it added. Neither of you have sighted sources and both of you only have one "valid" reason for its addition or subtraction. Please don't act your either one of you is more in the right than the other, it's obnoxious. I will admit that I'm more on the side of adding Wolftopia to the page since it's also been a big part of this planets history. Negating the importance of this name doesn't make sense because a big part of it's identity is the wacky name. Also, you could argue that the information about the campaign to name the planet SOPHIE is trivial too. Even more, the inclusion of Charlie XCX's name, That's a very trivial fact. The Google search argument only shows more that Wolftopia should be added to the page by clearly demonstrating that people genuinely care about this name. This petition with 90,000+ signatures is nothing compared to the millions of views and the amount of love that the Wolftopia name is getting. Just because you can't see that information plainly laid out for you does not mean that it does not exist. But I can't ignore your argument on its triviality to the planets history. Yes, it's not a real name and it's not a name that was ever considered by the actual founder(s) of the planet, it was a passing comment. The SOPHIE petition is also something that is more tangible, and won't wear away as quickly as things usually do in the internet zeitgeist. :| KiiWrites'N'Stuff (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But what is Wiki if not the ultimate source of both useful and trivial information? Is this planet known to some by this name? Yes. More people know it by “Wolftopia” than “TOI-1338”, by this point; wildy more people. So in truth it is another name for the planet, whether or not we want it to be, and no matter its true origin. Sefera17 (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly mention in body - Per Breaktheicees; all that really matters is if it's verifable in reliable sources, which it appears to be. It certainly doesn't seem to be something that's mentioned often though, so WP:DUE would suggest we should only mention it briefly. Popularity on tumblr and youtube are fairly irrelevant. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with it is partly that that's the only time he ever spoke about it but even more so that it wasn't even his suggestion. If it was his idea, perhaps, but I don't think a single source mentioning a suggestion by his brother (who isn't even named, or had anything to do with the discovering of the planet) is relevant. Breaktheicees (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the BBC thought it was relevant. So did the Philly Enquirer. Why are they wrong and you right? There aren't any notability requirements for facts that go into articles. It's only required that facts be veriable, neutral and due. I don't disagree w/ you about this information being trivial. I wouldn't be terribly interested in it as a reader. That said, "I don't find this information interesting" is not rationale for exclusion. WP:V, WP:N and WP:DUE are rationales for exclusion. The information is verifiable. I don't think anyone would argue it's not neutral. And "due-ness" depends on how much weight we give it in the article. A short, brief mention would be WP:DUE. NickCT (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input into this conversation. I admit, I didn't do a great job at defending the addition I've suggested, as I'm fairly new to the Wiki editing game. I've briefly read through the verifiable, notable, and due articles, so as to give myself more of an understanding of what constitutes adding something to an article.

Given this, I stand by my request to add the suggested name to the article, *briefly*. BookSquared (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC was reporting it as part of an interview. There are quite a few things Culkier said in that interview that aren't notable enough to be included in this article. I never said I didn't find it interesting, rather, the person who came up with the name has no real connection to the discovery of the planet, and we don't even know this person's name. The sources you gave don't establish that it was ever a real consideration for the name of the planet or one that Culkier ever considered himself. That's why I'm against its inclusion. Regardless, I appreciate the input. Breaktheicees (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re "aren't notable enough to be included in this article" - I don't know what that means. Notability isn't a requirement for inclusion of content within an article. WP:V, WP:N and WP:DUE are the requirements for inclusion. I also don't think it matters that it was said "at interview". That might mean that we should attribute the factoid (i.e. say something like; according to XXXX, the name XXXX was considered). But the fact it was said at interview doesn't mean it's not verifiable. What he said was veriable. The BBC verifies it. NickCT (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you mean Wikipedia:Neutral point of view instead? Which also leans towards allowing a brief mention of Wolftopia in the article. BookSquared (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Good catch newbie. I meant WP:NPOV not WP:N. NickCT (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to WP:ROC and WP:REL. In a sense, what is being requested equates to - "His brother, of unknown name, age, and importance, made a suggestion for a name of the planet which was never seriously considered by Culkier or NASA." The sources given just have it as a passing, irrelevant remark within an interview. If this was an idea or suggestion that was seriously considered, or even Culkier's own idea, my opinion would be different. Breaktheicees (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"All of Wikipedia's content must be verifiable. The relevance of information is best demonstrated by the provision of reliable sources, and of suitable context."

- the information I proposed to add is verifiable, and has reliable sources, and is in suitable context, pertaining specifically to this planet. This fulfills the terms set out in Relevance of Content.

As for Relevance in general, I see nothing in the REL article that says that Wolftopia that is Once, maybe Twice removed, should not be included in the article. It is in a direct quote from Cukier, who found it relevant enough to mention in interview, and it is in two different news articles about the discovery of the planet, and the interview with Cukier himself.

If you think I'm not interpreting the wiki articles correctly, please explain to me how. BookSquared (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It fails suitable context. Culkier did not say anything regarding if it was going to be an official name, or anything really. He said someone else said something. Not noteworthy. The articles are merely summarizing an interview and neither place any importance on the name but are simply restating that something was said. I'm not claiming it didn't happen or that it's not verifiable that it did, but it's not of importance to this article. Culkier also says "My mentor has been very supportive and excited" and we shouldn't include that either. In WP:REL, see:
"For example, 'Larry said that John is lazy' is not info about John, it is info about Larry's opinion and statement, even if Larry could sometimes be considered to be a source."

In this example, we have "Culkier said that his brother had an idea for a name". This is info about Culkier's brother's ideas, not Culkier himself. His brother is irrelevant to the planet's discovery and we have no information on him at all. Please also see WP:SIGNIF. Breaktheicees (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im feeling argumentative and irritable, so while im not dropping this, im gonna take a break from this convo before i start being rude. i hope u have a good night/day/evening/timezone BookSquared (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couple thoughts; obviously WP:ROC and WP:REL are essays not policies. Secondly (and I know this is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument), but we relay "remarks" from interviews all the time. The Shining (film) for example. Kubrick's comments on "human nature".

Again, I want to emphasize that I agree the content in question doesn't IMHO have great "encyclopedic value", but as a matter of policy, simply saying "it's irrelevant" is not grounds fror exclusion. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not simply saying "it's irrelevant". I'm saying his brother is not a public figure and has no ties to the discovery of the planet and that is why it is irrelevant. Kubrick's comments in that article are his. He is not saying "someone else thinks this". It's as relevant as if Culkier were to have said his friend or anyone else had an "idea" for a name. I hope we get more comments on this because clearly we don't see eye to eye. Breaktheicees (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we actually agree on a lot here. I wasn't implying you didn't have a rationale for saying "it's irrelevant". You could have a fantastic rationale for saying it's irrelevant. What I'm implying is that no matter how good your rationale is, it doesn't matter, b/c "relevance" isn't something we take into account when adding content. NickCT (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In WP:DUE:
"In determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources."

The sources do not place importance on the name.
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true."

It was an idea from a single, not public, nameless person.

In WP:VNOT:
"Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article."

Hence the need for this discussion. Breaktheicees (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure this is a good and needed discussion. I'm not contesting that.

And yes, WP:DUE is really the important policy. If someone was arguing this factoid should go in the lead, or that we should devote more than one sentence to it, I'd call it WP:UNDUE. But the fact it appears in two RS's seems like enough to have it appear briefly here. There are lots of factoids on WP that are only mentioned in a single source. Let me pose this question to you; how many sources would have to mention this factoid, before you felt the subject was due?

I'm not sure the "viewpoint" provision really applies here as we're not really discussing viewpoints. NickCT (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I've expressed, it's that the sources do not place importance on it and that the suggestion is not coming from Culkier himself. It is not noteworthy. Everything someone says in an interview, even if they are a notable person, is not notable. Especially when they are merely stating that someone else, who is not a public figure, had an "idea". If any of the sources gave some semblance of importance to the term, perhaps I'd think differently. None of them do. Breaktheicees (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your impression of what the sources are "placing importance" on is just your confirmation bias. In otherwords, you don't place importance on the factoid, so you're reading into the sources that they don't place importance on it either.

If you look at the BBC article, it dedicates comparable space to the fact that this planet is circumbinary as it does to the "Wolftopia" thing. I'm guessing you'd argue the BBC is placing importance on the circumbinary factoid, while not placing importance Wolftopia thing. Why? What's your logic? If the BBC didn't think Wolftopia was noteworthy, why did they note it? I'm sure Culkier said lots of things at that they didn't bother printing. NickCT (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't currently have anything constructive to add to this conversation, but I would like to note that news articles are more than capable of excluding and including information that helps them provide the right narrative. That they chose to include Wolftopia means that they place at least a little bit of importance on the name, even if it was just for entertainment value. BookSquared (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean with that. Culkier also talks about how it resembles a fictional planet (with even more of the article dedicated to that) and he also says "My mentor has been very supportive and excited", neither of which should be included. Breaktheicees (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His mentor being excited and supportive is in regards to Cukier himself. His brother's suggestion for the name of the planet is in regards to the planet specifically, and, as can be assumed using logic and looking at Cukier's first name, is in hopes of the planet being named *after* Cukier for the discovery. Cukier also said that he thinks calling it TOI-1338 is sufficient as well. The article gives more effort to the petition for calling the planet Sophie than it does for Cukier's opinions at all, and he's the one who found it. It goes briefly in to when and how he found it, where he was then, and what school he's in now, but nothing on his thoughts on the planet.

Actually, having said that, I think we should expand that section of the article more in general, give more insight into Cukier, as the discoverer of the planet. BookSquared (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about making assumptions. The Sophie campaign is included because of the high-profile backing it had. This article is not about Culkier, it is about the planet. The information included about him is sufficient. Breaktheicees (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did I ever imply that Wikipedia is about assumptions? I said we can assume that the name is in regards to the kid himself, but I never said we need to put that into the article. The Sophie campaign is only in the article because of the high-profile backing. If it had 90,000 votes for it and no celebrity backing, it would not be considered relevant. In fact, it wasn't considered relevant, until, I'm assuming, the editors who guarded this article at the time got tired of removing the petition from the article. Something, we haven't, apparently, gotten tired of arguing about in regards to the name that was included in two high-profile news articles.

I have to ask, because your rebuttals are becoming repetitive in regarts to NickCT's comments, are you actually open to being convinced, or are you arguing against it just because you want to be right? I admit that I'm motivated mostly by my personal opinion that it's relevant, but I also know that I don't know enough about Wiki Editing to argue for it well, so I've taken a back seat in this discussion, and sidelined myself in regards to the overall arguement. BookSquared (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My rebuttals certainly are becoming repetitive, and that's because I've had to repeat myself with the same information. I also hoped that by now we'd have seen more participation in this discussion. I don't "just want to be right" and I am open to being convinced, but nobody has shown that this is a worthwhile addition to the article. In regards to the SOPHIE campaign, I agree that it's only relevant because of the high-profile sources. If there were notable articles that were about the name "Wolftopia" specifically (as the SOPHIE sources are), rather than articles that mention it once among other similar passing comments that also shouldn't be included, I might be inclined to agree with its inclusion. As it stands, however, there are not. Breaktheicees (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I was also hoping that more people would join this conversation and give their opinions, but well. The planet just isn't altogether that popular. I think the only real popularity it has comes from the Sophie campaign and Wolftopia, honestly.

I've honestly gotten so tired of this back and forth, I don't know how to convince you, and I'm not going to just drop that it should be mentioned in the article. I don't even want to make half a paragraph about it, literally just half a sentence, so that it's mentioned. Like, I actually don't understand why you're so against that, it's not like it's not relevant, just that it's not "relevant enough", I guess? I don't understand, what makes something relevant enough? What would I have to find to make this relevant enough to put in the wiki article? BookSquared (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
when do we call this done? BookSquared (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. We haven't been able to reach a consensus but one still needs to be reached if it is to be added. Breaktheicees (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#RFC concerning TOI-1338. Feel free to request input from other projects that may have an interest or opinion. Lithopsian (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is clear, as is this addition and its reliable sourcing. I'd remind you of WP:OWN. I'd also point you at WP:NOTABLE and remind you that this applies to the topic of articles, not sourced items within them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]