Talk:NGC 3532

Wishing Well Cluster
This alternative name was in the article before, and has since been removed on suspicion that the name in fact originated here. But it really doesn't matter where it originated, it is now in general use -- appearing in WikiSky and in the following description from ESO: http://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1246a/ and this APOD: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100226.html, not to mention a variety of other space photo captions. -- Elphion (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Wishing Well Cluster" was named for fraudulent advertising of jewellery, and the site was linked through Wikipedia. The IAU have been made well aware of this. Others have adopted this without knowing the fraud being conducted here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What fraud are you talking about? Can you provide details?  Is there an official disavowal of the name?  It seems to be very widespread now.  -- Elphion (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If both ESO and APOD use this name, then it doesn't matter if it did originate here, it's in widespread use. If it wasn't in widespread use, then it could be removed, but as it is in widespread use, we'd be picking and choosing instead of presenting the world as it is. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the above, I have restored the name "Wishing Well Cluster", removed earlier by, as it is in fact a well-known and widely-used informal name, as a Google search can quickly confirm. (Indeed, it is far more common than "Football Cluster" in my experience.) The sources provided, pace Arianewiki. are just as good and "proper" as those for "Football Cluster". Removing the name at this point amounts to pushing one's own wp:POV. -- Elphion (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * What can you do when you know that the name is fraudulent. It was purposely removed from SIMBAD for this very reason! It was named this just to sell stinking jewellery! I did notified as many organisations as I could, but you can't easily remove everything. Yet now you know better, and these source quoted were actually duped. Blinding believing everything on the internet. These edits were made in WP:GF not WP:POV. Stupidity just perpetuates the myth, which is a major failure of encyclopedia like this one. This is why people just use Wikipedia for promotion, because they just know they can get away with it; and anyone who knows better, is basically called in the open a out-and-out liar! Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In the first place, it's not clear that it is "fraudulent" at all. We've had this discussion before:  the evidence you mentioned is hardly conclusive, and you have not elaborated on it (though I have asked).  But that doesn't matter anymore; the point is that it is now a well-established name.  All popular names get coined somehow; they are not mediated by IAU.  If they catch on, they get used, regardless of the details of the coining.  The sources were not "duped", they just liked the name -- and this is why things catch on.  I have not attributed bad faith to you (quite the opposite -- I know you are trying to keep WP honest) -- but in this case you seem to be unaware (or unwilling to accept) that this is by now the most commonly-used name for this cluster, regardless of its putative shady origins. -- Elphion (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)