Talk:HR 3803

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to HR 3803 and HR 3407, respectively. Jenks24 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

– More than 30 google scholar results for this title, and 6 for the HD number; falls under WP:NCASTRO clause 3 (only latin bayer designations fall under clause 1). Since the star "n velorum" (HD 74272) is nearly never referred to by its latin letter bayer designation (as are nearly all lowercase latin bayer designations except occasionally 53 Eridani, a simple hatnote at the top of the new title would suffice. For C Velorum, the numbers are similar. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC) StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * HD 82668 → N Velorum
 * HD 73155 → C Velorum
 * Comment both and  were articles, that were split into the relevant star articles. So if this is renamed, the edit histories need to be kept. I suppose they could be called N Velorum (Bayer designation) and C Velorum (Bayer designation), and would remain as set indices. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose HD 82668 should be called HR 3803, as it has more Gscholar hits. Similary with HD 73155 which should be called HR 3407, and the related lowercase ones are also better under the HR designations. The Bayer designations are not Greek ones, and are confusing. It's cleaner to use HD or HR designations, and the HR designations are as popular or more so than the Bayer ones. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for most constellations, capital latin letter Bayer designations are never used, but for the former Argo Navis constellations, for some reason (don't ask my why; I don't know) they are used much more often. After looking, you are completely correct on the HR numbers though, and since it is an earlier catalog than the HD catalog, under WP:NCASTRO we should indeed use them as the name. Does anyone know if I'm allowed to modify move requests after initializing them? StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I'm the only one who registered an opinion, and you're changing it to match my suggestion, I think it'll be fine to change it -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is an awkward one. By a strict reading of WP:NCASTRO, the uppercase Bayer designations should be used. But I agree that the HR or HD numbers are more appropriate in these cases. Would it be worth suggesting that NCASTRO be changed to refer to the Greek Bayer designations only? The Latin ones are virtually unused, with a few notable exceptions (P Cygni for example). NCASTRO doesn't mention HR numbers either, I wonder if that's deliberate? Modest Genius talk 13:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I already interpret the first WP:NCASTRO clause to only refer to the greek designations, since otherwise the guidelines make no sense at all. However, I'm proposing this move under the third clause which says that HD designations should be used "unless an earlier catalogue number is more widely recognised" (to quote the policy). In this case, it seems that the latin Bayer designations are the most widely recognized (except the HR numbers as demonstrated by 65 above). Anyways, I think that the main thing that this discussion is showing is that our naming conventions need to be overhauled; thoughts? StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not overhauled, just a minor tweak. They weren't drafted with this specific situation in mind. Indeed, most astronomers aren't aware that Latin Bayer designations even exist. Modest Genius talk 18:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So can we agree to rename both stars to their HR numbers? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose the move as proposed. Any upper-case Roman letter Bayer designation will fail WP:AT because of ambiguity brought about by Wikipedia's current technical limitations, and will almost always (perhaps even always) be a borderline case for other reasons (considering it must be at least the 51st star that was catalogued in the constellation). I'd support a tweak to WP:STARNAMES to avoid the need to repeat the same discussion in the future, and commend the rational discussion above (should be more of it in RMs). No vote as to which of the alternative names is better in these particular cases. Andrewa (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HR 3803. 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/20100121133557/http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/Page206.htm to http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/Page206.htm

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) 21:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Name of this star: Marut?
The list of stars in the constellation Vela shows the name Marut for this star. Could someone of you (astronomers or amateur astronomers) give us more information about the meaning of this name? Is it a real officially recognized name or is it invented by someone who wanted to give it (this star) a name? DannyCaes (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Certainly not an official name. Probably not invented by someone who wanted to name a star, but I don't know where it comes from and can't find any remotely useful information about it.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)