Talk:International Star Registry/Archives/2017

Article Vandalism
This article was totally trashed by persistent vandalism. Someone keep asserting that ISR starnaming was official and that it and the IAU were the only authorized bodies to name stars which is totally untrue. This article should be rolled back to the October 2014 version. Glennconti (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this but IAU has its own Wikipedia entry so what is the significance of including the IAU details here on this article instead of its own article? Looking at the page it seems more emphasis is on IAU with no factual information on the International Star Registry. It also needs to be edited for neutral tone. --Droinglipse (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The significance is that many astronomers take issue with ISR's novelty products and therefore use the references from the IAU to undermine this business and industry. They feel it usurps their authority to name stars. So they constantly attempt to de-legitimize ISR. The IAU has a firm stance against commercial or novelty star naming. They are insecure because their own legitimacy to name stars is only defacto. Glennconti (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple names for the same star.
Why was my edit reverted here? Given that "(n)either the IAU nor commercial interests have legal authority to name celestial bodies" there will be circumstances where a single star can be given more than one name - for a start, the IAU will name a star, and the International Star Registry could also name it - ergo you've got two names straight away.

Also take into account that there is more than one company offering to name a star:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

And there is no reason to remove the statement.

I'll also point out that the reversion you've gone back to now doesn't make grammatical sense: "Neither the IAU nor commercial interests have legal authority to name celestial bodies as such competing authorities can issue names"  My version did make sense.

I see you've commented in the section above - do you consider my edit to be vandalism, and if so - what exactly makes it vandalism, and why shouldn't it be included?

And finally, please use edit summaries - especially when undoing an edit if the reason isn't obvious. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry I misread your edit. I thought it said that the IAU would name the same star multiple names. Glennconti (talk)

Is this really notable?
In fact, looking at this page, I'm not sure that the company concerned is notable enough to warrant a page of their own. I think this might be better off converted into a generic "naming a star" page, and the article content adapted to cover the generic concept of buying a star's name. This particular company seems no more notable than any other company that offers the very same thing - and a quick Google search brings up many such companies. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ISR is the most notable in that they used to have by far the largest national advertising budget. Not so much anymore as competitors are eating away at their business. But, because of all of their radio advertising in large city markets, they were a lightning rod for critics of their practices; this resulted in news coverage from reliable sources. Trying to make an article about the commercial star naming industry at-large in general will be more problematic due to the lack of sources. Glennconti (talk)