Talk:Gliese 752

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gliese 752. 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/20090604100620/http://steps.jpl.nasa.gov/links/docs/pravdoshaklan09vb10b.pdf to http://steps.jpl.nasa.gov/links/docs/pravdoshaklan09vb10b.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC

Merger proposal

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Discussion is dead.

A proposal to merge VB 10 into this article was recently added by User:Neopeius but then removed. A merge was previously proposed in 2009, with an apparent consensus to merge, but this was not done. I agree that both components of this binary star system can be covered in a single article, and it seems that the main reason for keeping VB 10 separate at the time was the now disproven claim of a planet; indeed, the primary star is now known to have a planet with no current evidence of one around VB 10. SevenSpheres (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Sorry for the false (true?) alarm. I am not opposed to merging the two articles. What ultimately gave me pause was the fact that "VB-10" was *far* more referenced in the scholarly literature than Gliese 752. But now I see that Gliese 752 is more commonly known as "Van Biesbroeck's Star", and there's plenty on both stars to make a full article. That said, the three components of Alpha Centauri all have their own articles, so there's no reason why VB-10 couldn't keep its and the Gliese 752 article expanded. I dunno.


 * If someone else is willing to do the work (I stumbled on the article by accident—I don't have a lot of skin in the game), I agree to a merger. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Alpha Centauri A and B don’t have their own articles, only Proxima Centauri has it's own article. 117daveawesome (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, VB 10 is pretty notable, also, Mira and Mira B is another example. Flakkersweeee (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did notice Mira B after proposing this which made me question it... but then, WP:OTHERSTUFF. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, The article about vB 10 is too complex to be fully rewritten on the Gliese 752 page, as it has more than 16000 bytes, 7 sections, 17 references, in addition to already being a class C article with mid importance on Wikiproject Astronomy.
 * Furthermore, VB 10 is much better known than Gliese 752, and the page information indicates this: While the page about VB 10 has been viewed more than 41,900 times in the last 5 years (Jan 2019 to Dec 2023), Gliese 752 was viewed 3.5 times less, with just 11,837 views in the last 5 years. So, as one star is much better known than the other, it is better to leave the page about VB 10 as a separate article, as it already directs people to what they want, detailed information about VB 10, not about Gliese 752. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: This discussion is possibly dead, no one has commented anything in the last two months, and there have only been five participants including me and 117daveawesome, who left just a comment. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.