Talk:HD 49878

M. camelopardalis
M. camelopardalis - a fish -

76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. Unless I've missed something, no one has actually expressed opposition to this proposal after over four weeks. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

– These names seem to be the most common names for the stars in question. Since latin letter bayer designations are exempt from the first clause of WP:NCASTRO as a result of a discussion on talk:HR 3803 and the fact that the current title designations are almost never used according to Google Scholar search results, these pages should be renamed to their HD designations per WP:NCASTRO. (One note about Google Scholar searches: although the HR designations gave more results, nearly all of them were completely irrelevant to the stars and were only incidental.) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)  relisting Tiggerjay (talk) 05:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC) StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * M Camelopardalis → HD 49878
 * D Camelopardalis → HD 21447
 * H Camelopardalis → HD 24479
 * N Camelopardalis → HD 106112


 * Comment the HR designations should atleast exist as redirects (regardless if these move or not), as should the HD ones (if this isn't moved; and the variant forms HD49878, HD21447 , HD24479 , HD106112 ) ; HR 2527 , HR 1046 , HR 1204 , HR 4646 / HR2527 , HR1046 , HR1204 , HR4646, respectively -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely the redirects should be created (I would do them after the move though, since if it succeeds we will have a ton of double redirects to clean up). StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment we've got a probelm with H Cam and D Cam, the target HD pages already exist as preexisting articles. I suggest a quick merge on those two. The two HDs being CarloscomB articles, I'm not confident of their accuracy, as has had problems with copypasting without fixing the data to create many articles sequentially. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * CarloscomB was before my time, but I've heard of him through other editors. From what I've heard, it wouldn't surprise me if he simply didn't check to see if the articles existed at an alternate name, and just created them. Therefore, it is likely, based on reading both articles, that they are indeed on the same star, and so the HD articles should be speedily merged into the Bayer articles. I'll merge them right now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you merged the two the other way, we could have dispensed with the move discussion on those two as moot. The CarloscomB articles are several years older than the other articles. Rather, it was who didn't check (though CarloscomB also had that habit of not checking if a star article already existed at a different name)  -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My bad there. Anyways, the reason I came across these was because they were linked from Stars of Camelopardalis when I was going to create the updated template layout that I've been using for stuff like Stars of Andromeda. They're merged now, so that's done though, and my gut feeling is that this will succeed due to the earlier move discussion. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we need to keep the edit histories anyways, you could move the two CarloscomB article histories to HR 1046 and HR 1204 respectively, from their current HD locations. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ edit histories moved to the HR titles, as redirects to whatever name these articles will use. Clearing the way for the move. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On that note, User_talk:Benkenobi18 shows that Benkenobi18's own star articles are just as unreliable as CarloscomB's -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I am curious as to why the scope is only these 4 specific articles. It would seem that we would want to adjust all of List of stars in Camelopardalis to the HD numbers if this was a proper move per policy... Any thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that these stars have no Flamsteed designation at all, and the latin-letter Bayer designation (current title) is not well-known even by professional astronomers. The other stars in the list are at the names that they're most commonly known by at follow WP:NCASTRO. But, per consensus on an earlier RM, latin-letter bayer designations are exempt from the first clause, and thus the article should be moved. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.