Talk:Mizar

Article should be called Mizar
Instead of just undoing what I did, saying that it needs to be done a different way, why don't you go ahead and do it the proper way? In my opinion, people who want to see who did what (attribution) can just come to this article and check. Actually most of what was done on this article was before you split the Mizar and Alcor article, and if people really want to know how the article came about they have to go there! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What you did needed undoing, full stop. What happens next is up to you, because I no more have the permissions to make this move than you do.  You might try and slide it through as a technical request, but probably it needs discussion so you'll have to make the case.  I won't object, but maybe someone will; I was a little surprised that the split stuck without major angst.  Then you'll know how to do it for next time ;)  Lithopsian (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Mizar A and B a binary starsystem?
If Mizar A and B are revolving around each other in thousands years as written in the article aren't they then a binary starsystem? Agerskov (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See Mizar and Alcor. Maybe a short section here to make it more obvious that there is relevant information in another article?  See Alcor (star) for how it is handled there.  Lithopsian (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 September 2019
Zeta Ursae Majoris → Mizar (star system) – "Mizar" is the common name for this system, and also the official name recognised by the International Astronomical Union for its Aa component [1 ]. It is referred to such by the Encyclopædia Britannica [2 ], Space.com [3 ], Astronomy Picture of the Day [4 ], and EarthSky [5 ], among other reputable sources – Space.com and EarthSky in particular don't even make reference to the system's Bayer designation. It should also be noted as relevant points of discussion that a) prioritises the "Mizar" name, using it instead of its bayer designation several times, and b) the article Mizar and Alcor exists, and is not titled Zeta Ursae Majoris and Alcor, which is a consistency issue that should be resolved here with this move discussion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 00:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling this had been discussed before, but maybe it was just the previous exchange on this page and nothing was ever done. I'd suggest that the name Mizar (star) is more consistent with other double stars that need disambiguating (eg. Mimosa (star), Atlas (star), and XO-2 (star)), as well as with Alcor itself which is also double.  The use of "Zeta Ursae Majoris" is just consistent with the article title, I wouldn't take it as having too much weight.  The IAU issue is one that we're still largely skirting around; their declaration that proper names belong only to the primary component is tricky given that many WP articles are about the whole star system.  However, popular usage ignores the IAU and frequently applies proper names to whole system (see the extensive, if not always constructive, discussion at Talk:Rigel).  Lithopsian (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was led to believe that Mizar is a star system, due to the article itself describing Mizar as a "quadruple star system" and Mizar A (ζ1) and Mizar B (ζ2) as binaries – if this isn't true, then its citations should be scrutinised further and the article itself needs to be rewritten. It should be noted that there is a precedent for star systems being labelled as such in their titles; Apep (star system) is one example, which was named through a clear consensus without objection to the use of the "star system" disambiguation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * First choice - move Mizar back to Mizar (disambiguation) since the star is definitely the primary topic here and make this article Mizar. Rename Second choice, rename it to Mizar (star). Whatever the IAU recently decided to do, the common usage is to refer to such things, visible as one star to the naked eye, as stars, whether binary or not, rather than systems. See the references at the start of this discussion. The article on this star has had many names over the years, starting out as Mizar but losing out to a disambiguation page, then getting moved to "Mizar and Alcor". Before the move it spent time as "Mizar (star)" and "Zeta Ursae Majoris" according to the early history of the disambiguation page. I don't see much discussion of any of these changes. Apep (star system) is a recent discovery not visible to the naked eye, and was named for interesting characteristics of the system created as the smaller of the WR pair passes through the stellar winds of the larger. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC) Revised choice. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe consider changing traditions to benefit the reader? Too many times I've been confused by article titles impling that the subject is a single star when it is in fact a optical double or a star system instead. I'm sure many other editors and readers feel the same way. I think it'd be best to call stars "stars" and star systems "star systems" instead of star systems "stars" and confusing the reader in the process. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 01:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with StarryGrandma: move this to Mizar and the dab page to Mizar (disambiguation). Mizar is the WP:COMMONNAME of this star, and the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE of Mizar is for the star. Most of the other entries on that dab page were named after the star. This solution would also avoid having to decide whether to use 'star' or 'star system' in the title. Modest Genius talk 11:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per the nominator's rationale of consistency, common usage, etc. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  11:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)