Talk:Kappa Crucis

Need of a new Wikidata object
This disambiguation occupied the Wikidata object for the star Kappa Crucis, so I have deleted it. There were three articles connected with it, of which one was misdirected. EnWp and ZhWp was correct and should get a new Wikidata object. Can please one of the authors of these articles fix this in an appropriate way!? Deryni (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the original author of this change (from 2009!), but I'd fix it if I knew what to do. The original Wikidata item was just changed to link with Kappa Crucis (star).  Kappa Crucis Cluster also has a Wikidata item.  What else is needed here?  Should this article have one?  Note that this article is not strictly a disambiguation page at the moment, although it effectively functions as one and may shortly become one.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Set index or disambiguation?
This article is currently a set index, a list of items of the same specific type (eg. a list of stars, see C Centauri). However, it links to two items which are not the same: one is a star and one is a cluster. I'm thinking it should be a real disambiguation page? Lithopsian (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a disambig. --Infovarius (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Kappa Crucis
From talk page in Wikidata for ValterVB.

Your editing of Kappa Crucis is incorrect. Kappa Crucis is a star, a Bayer object. You have directed Kappa Crucis to this disambiguation page. This page lead to Kappa Crucis, but also to the Jewel Box star cluster, which also is called Kappa Crucis cluster, but NOT Kappa Crucis. Please correct this. If there is need for a disambiguation page in EnWp I suggest it should be Kappa Crucis (different meanings) or whatever the syntax may be in EnWp, so that the Bayer object gets priority. Deryni (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Infovarius Strange. I can not imaging a single reason why en:Kappa Crucis shouldn't be a disambig (except technical _disambig_ which is an error I think)

The star Kappa Crucis should have precedence before the disambiguation as there is only one Kappa Crucis, namely the star. The star cluster, NGC 4755, or the Jewel Box, is also called Kappa Crucis Cluster, as Kappa Crucis is the prime member of the cluster. But it is not called Kappa Crucis. Therefore there is only one Kappa Crucis, the star. Strange to have a disambiguation for one article. Well, if you are pleased to have it this way, I will not take further notice, as I mainly work in the Swedish Wikipedia. But give me this: A disambiguation for one object!? I recommend that you change "en:Kappa Crucis (star)" to "Kappa Crucis". All the best. Deryni (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thought I'd replied to this. Somewhere else?  Not sure who I'm actually replying to, but here goes.  The title of the article shouldn't be taken to prejudice the content or most commonly-used name.  It is simply an unambiguous way to get a reader from what they type to where they want to go.  It isn't about having the "right" name, but about one which works.  For ambiguous titles, that means a disambiguation page.  κ Crucis was a designation originally applied to the 4th magnitude fuzzy patch which is the cluster NGC 4755, not the barely-naked-eye individual point of light HD 111973.  HD 111973 isn't even the brightest star in the cluster, but it is now the one that holds the Bayer designation.  The cluster is now rarely referred to simply as Kappa Crucis, although this can be seen in old books.  If you can show that the vast majority of readers looking for "Kappa Crucis" want the star and not the cluster then it should be changed to a redirect and hatnote, otherwise it needs to be a disambiguation page to direct them.  Again I'll say, there is nothing "wrong" with the current article titles, it really isn't something to get hung up on unless it is stopping a lot of people getting easily to where they want to go.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. I still have no clue what is, or needs to be, going on at Wikidata.  Perhaps not something to mess with until the status of the WP article titles is settled?  Lithopsian (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)