Talk:PSR B1259−63/LS 2883

NOT rq-pulsar
This is NOT a radio quiet pulsar! See Johnston et al. 1992 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992ApJ...387L..37J 192.167.8.185 (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)mb192.167.8.185 (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I did fix that in the article, but my edit was reverted away, so it's still saying wrong things. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

excised box

 * - style="vertical-align: top;"
 * Distance 
 * 1.500 Light-year

I excised this starbox, because it is factually wrong in several respects. Someone needs to rebuild it. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This starbox conflates the properties of the B2e star with that of the pulsar. As I've been reverted, someone else will have to fix the box and the text of the article. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem was not with removing incorrect information from the starbox, my problem was that you removed the entire starbox. I don't have a problem with you removing one piece of information from that box if you believe it's wrong, but I don't think that one wrong piece of information justifies deletion of the whole starbox. Matt (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

PSR B1259-63 → PSR B1259-63/LS 2883 – Much of the study of this pulsar is in relation to how it interacts with the Be star LS 2883 over the course of the binary orbit. It therefore seems to me that it would make most sense to change this article's scope to the binary system as a whole rather than just the pulsar. The combined designation is attested from the titles of multiple papers listed on SIMBAD for this system. A possible alternative title would be PSR B1259-63/SS 2883: this appears to have been the original form of the designation and therefore "wins" on a simplistic count of number of usages, though the paper titles indicate that the LS form has been more frequently-used than the SS form since the first appearance of the LS form in 2011. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment MOS:SLASH/WP:SUBPAGE -- we should avoid slashes (which make articles look like subpages) if possible. What if you use "and" or "&" instead? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think WP:SUBPAGE is the relevant part here: in this case the combined form in actual use uses the slash, rather than "and" or the ampersand, so should be named accordingly. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 07:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move and use of slash. Slash makes more intuitive sense in this case, since they are in the same system and not just a naked-eye double. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support move and use of slash - system is notable and best discussed as a unit. Each object is part of it and thus the slash is part of the most accurate title. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 11 July 2014 (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.