Talk:G Doradus

Requested move 1 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

G Doradus → 28 G. Doradus – G Doradus is not a real Bayer designation, and when you search for ‘G Doradus’, you’ll more likely get results for Gamma Doradus or the Gamma Doradus variable. Very misleading. Astronomical Editor (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Support – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I see that the text says The bayer designation "G Doradus" was not assigned by Benjamin Gould or Lacaille. It merely arose due to the designation assigned by Gould; 28 G. Doradus. If this is the case I agree that the page should be moved, but it's tagged with "citation needed". Do you have a source for it? SevenSpheres (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, but this designation seems to be created by Wikipedia. Only the Wikipedia search result shows “G Doradus”. Astronomical Editor (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's in SIMBAD. SevenSpheres (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but the claim is from page 137 in Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others". I meant to put the citation in there earlier, but I forgot to do that. Speed doesn't always mean quality'' 400Weir (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Astronomy has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The only object known by this exact name, and there's no need to include a confusing-looking number in front of it. If people are confused by Gamma Doradus etc. we can give them a hatnote. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relist, to allow further discussion of whether a hatnote will be sufficient BilledMammal (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose there is an explanation for the weird Bayer designation in Wagman (2003) on page 137. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per Amakuru. A hatnote would be nice, though, since there's no point in potentially confusing someone when we can avoid doing so. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)