Talk:Stellar designations and names

Alternative Point of View
I have tried to remove some of the "astronomer bias" out of this article. The fact remains that commercial star naming companies disclaim association with the scientific community and inform consumers that star naming is a novelty gift. Informed consumers make the purchase anyway. This is a controversial subject where only the astronomers view is being provided. I have tried to temper the astronomers bias out of this controversy. My edits should stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennconti (talk • contribs) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Informed consumers make the purchase anyway.". Really? I would think that a genuinely informed consumer would save their money. Skeptic2 (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well this is where you are wrong. People in general are not as cynical as apparently you are. People are sentimental and have feelings and emotions and love the idea of naming a star even if it is not blessed by the IAU. The attempts by the IAU to stamp out this sentimental interest by the folks in naming stars has not succeeded. Oh and by the way 54% of respondents (common folk) in this survey by arrogant condescending astronomer said they would still buy a star even though it is not deemed official by astronomers Glennconti (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Further, I believe the percentage would have been higher if the astronomer "in his white lab coat and with clipboard in hand (figuratively speaking)" had not tainted the study by implying non-scientific star naming was expensive in his survey questions. Glennconti (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the abuse (both personal and against whole segments of society) for a moment, one person giving money to one company to assign a name has zero notability in the Wikipedia sense. Equally, there are many companies offering such services, none of which can claim any precedence in the matter and making no effort to avoid assigning different names to the same star or the same name to different stars.  Such people may well be making an informed choice that they are simply buying a piece of paper, but judging by the number that come here and try to add their names to articles, I would suggest that many are not.  If any of these commercial names ever come into widespread use by more than a handful of people then they will be reflected in the relevant article, supported by appropriate WP:RELIABLE citations; there are multiple examples of historical and modern nicknames other than formal designations or IAU names being included in star articles, even occasionally as the article title.  However, pigs may fly first.  Lithopsian (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Star Names – R. H. Allen's book
I decided to reinstate this section. It was deleted by a prior contributor on the grounds that it might be considered advertising. However, Star Names has long been the standard source and a mention of it could hardly be construed as advertising. In addition, given that it can occasionally mislead as well as illuminate, a discussion of its shortcomings seems appropriate here. Skeptic2 15:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: And as there is an entry on it in Wikipedia I have added a link. Skeptic2 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In order to support your statement (protecting from long-fingered policy warriors): Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning is a public domain source because of expired copyright, and yes: it is a standard source, verily! But I think the ISBN numbering should be in the references part, so that the book name can be in the text, but the ISBN numbering should be embraced by a pair. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Did so ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Allen's book, II
I think the mention of Allens book should be complemented by some mentioning of it's reliability. It's a standard work, yes, but it is considered unreliable by some ... gonna find srces somewhere ... as regards to ... eh ... most certainly the proposed Assyrian/Babylonian/Mesopotamian interpretations that Allen is providing, and maybe also the Chinese names. The general trouble is not Allen himself, but some sources that he relies on. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Gary D. Thompson writes that:
 * For Western constellations and star names use of Richard Allen's Star-Names should be replaced with:
 * Planetarium Babylonicum, by Felix Gössmann (1950) (but now becoming outdated);
 * Egyptian Astronomical Texts, by Otto Neugebauer and Richard Parker (3 Volumes, 1960-1969);
 * Gestirnnamen bei den indogermanischen Völken, by Anton Scherer (1953);
 * (importantly) Le vocabulaire latin de l'Astronomie, by André Le Boeuffle (3 Volumes, 1973) (who traces both Greek and Babylonian antecedents for Latin constellation/star names); and 
 * Arabische Sternnamen in Europa, by Paul Kunitzsch (1959); 
 * and for star lore its use can be replaced with:
 * Mythen der Sterne, by Friedrich Norman (1925); 
 * The New Patterns in the Sky: Myths and Legends of the Stars, by Julius Staal (1988); and
 * (importantly) Beyond the Blue Horizon: Myths and Legends of the Sun, Moon, Stars, and Planets, by Ed. Krupp (1991).
 * which essentially means that Allen is almost totally obsolete, with a possible exception of the Chinese star names. Possibly instead:
 * I. The Mesopotamian traditions - Akkadian/Babylonian mostly
 * II. The Mediterranean traditions - Mycenean (?) or Minoan (?) origins of the non-mesopotamian constellations
 * for some of these references. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 19:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For myths, Staal's book is hopelessly unreliable and should not be used as a source. Allen's Chinese names are totally outdated due to changes in transliteration, and he misunderstood a lot of the meanings. There are better modern sources.Skeptic2 (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Official Star Names?!
I take issue with the fact that the IAU has the exclusive authority to officially name stars and all others do not have this right or privilege. I have done some extensive searches and have not found a basis for this authority. First the IAU does not represent a majority of nations; it only has 74 member nations. I have seen a lot of misinformation. Second the IAU does not name stars so how can it be claiming the right to do so. Can someone please find some substantial references that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the IAU has undisputed exclusive authority to name stars? Also some astronomers are saying they have the right by international treaty, total BS as far as I can tell. What makes the IAU any more official than any other organization? This article is saying the IAU is "official" - and private registries are "unofficial". Prove it.


 * Please sign your posts.
 * The article does not say that the IAU is 'official' and private registries 'unofficial', or that the IAU has exclusive authority to name stars. Though it's patently obvious that the IAU is extremely influential when it comes to the naming of stars and other celestial objects. Its pronouncements are overwhelmingly accepted by professional and amateur astronomers; educational institutions; writers of text books; the press; etc. Other bodies much less so. Any article on stellar designation is bound to give prominence to the IAU. The IAU does name stars and claims the right to do so. Indeed, if other organisations have the right to name stars, why shouldn't the IAU? Nevertheless, the article might do with some clarification (with references) on the nature and extent of the IAU's 'official' 'right' to name stars. Though who think so should make judicious edits! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article did indeed say that star naming by other entities is "unofficial" until I changed it. The IAU may have the right to name stars based on a significant ceding of that ability from scientists to its committees. But in no way is it an 'exclusive' right from all I can tell. For example, a lay astronomer in Fiji (not an IAU member country) should have every 'authority' to name a celestial body discovered by her for her deceased daughter if it is her choice based on historical discoverer's precedent. I am using this hypothetical example to undermine the IAU perceived EXCLUSIVE authority because I feel there might be wide agreement (even in the scientific community) that such an naming might be 'allowed' and even take hold in the press because it would be a compelling story. This lay person's naming might then become a common name that would then even be used in the scientific community. What would give the IAU the right to deny her her glory? By what authority? None as far as I can tell!

This article lists as a reference an widely cited webpage (not a reliable source) published by the IAU that says they are the 'official' arbiter of naming, all others are 'unofficial' and indeed anyone who attempts to name a star is some kind of charlatan (a usurper of their power and authority). They disdain and ridicule anyone who would consider any other authority other than their own. To me this is arrogant beyond belief. What is the source of their exclusive authority?? They claim it so it is theirs. It is as simple as that. By what legal principle do they have this exclusive authority? Glennconti (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I find this questioning of the role and authority of the IAU perplexing. The IAU is astronomy’s international governing body and it governs by the consensus of astronomers around the world. A clear and complete statement of the IAU’s role can be found here: http://www.iau.org/about/. Perhaps I can pick out this quote as relevant to our discussion: “Among the other tasks of the IAU are the definition of fundamental astronomical and physical constants; unambiguous astronomical nomenclature; promotion of educational activities in astronomy; and informal discussions on the possibilities for future international large-scale facilities. Furthermore, the IAU serves as the internationally recognized authority for assigning designations to celestial bodies and surface features on them.” I hope this is now clear. Skeptic2 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the IAU represents a "consensus of astronomers". Astronomers have dissenting views . And again the IAU does not even represent a majority of nations. How can this be considered a consensus? Also when you say "internationally recognized" that has very little meaning. If just two countries recognized the authority of the IAU it could be considered "internationally recognized", hardly authoritative. Would you say that the annexation of the Crimea by Russia is "internationally recognized" simply because Russia and it's allies condone this action? Again I am asking for a more rigorous inspection of their purported authority. Oh and thanks for the snarky comment "I hope this is now clear". Much appreciate! Glennconti (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC) Oh and further a small committee at the IAU unilaterally making naming decisions can hardly be considered a consensus. They do not even seek a majority vote from astronomers who are members. Not even democratic. Certainly not by consensus. Glennconti (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, astronomers have dissenting views, but they vote on proposals at the IAU General Assemblies. It’s called democracy. The proposals of the Working Group on Star Names will need to be approved by in the same way. As its web page makes clear, the IAU is a member of the International Council for Science (ICSU), which is the umbrella organization for the world’s scientific unions. Really, you can’t get more Gold Standard than that and any attempt to suggest otherwise is simply being perverse. One reason for the existence of organizations such as the IAU is to prevent the kind of free-for-all you are suggesting. Skeptic2 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I yield to your point that the IAU has a right to name celestial bodies given to them by astronomers who don't wish to assert their individual discovery rights. However, this is no way an exclusive right of the IAU. There is no way to prevent a "free-for-all". The United Nations has said that no country or organization shall have dominion over space. Why do you believe the system provided by the IAU is superior to other systems so much so that they get an exclusive right? They certainly aren't considering the needs of most people (common folks); they are only considering the needs of astronomers and the academic community. The interests of common people are being served by private companies and private catalogs. To have the IAU disparage and ridicule the needs of these people wanting to declare their love or memorialize a loved one is just plain arrogance. Glennconti (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Glenn, You may name any star what you wish. You may pay an organization to write its name in a book and give you a map showing where it is. You may create any number of new constellations and call them what you want. Just don't expect anyone else to take any notice. Cheers. Skeptic2 (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I believe I have that right. And I also believe being disparaged and ridiculed for doing so is wrong. Private registries have every much a right to name stars as the IAU. Just because astronomers have ceded their right to name stars to the IAU does not mean that non-astronomers lose that right. Bottom line, you have not proved that the IAU is "official" where others are not. Glennconti (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's quite correct to say that anyone can name any star anything if they wish and that the IAU, as a non-governmental body, has no especial legal authority in this regard. What it does have is persuasive authority in that its authority and rulings are accepted by the overwhelming majority of professional astronomers. Its advantage is that the names it approves (generally it confirms names nominated by others) tend to be cited and used by professional and amateur astronomers, other astronomical and science organisations, educational institutions, book and blog writers, the media and governmental bodies. Names given by other people, not so much. That's why the article is dominated by the IAU. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Your enlightened position is however different than that of the IAU. They maintain that they are the only source for naming celestial bodies. They denigrate and call all others charlatans and ridicule any one that would even consider naming a star at a private registry. This bullying attitude that they espouse then permeates the air because of their supposed authority and reliability. So much so that scientists, following or expanding upon their lead, smear private registries in the press calling them scams. Many private registries have been in business for decades, maintain excellent BBB ratings and overall delivering on their promises to their customers. They are not scams. I am happy that this article no longer unfairly characterizes these private registries and believe it is "ok" in its current form. Certainly the IAU deserves a prominent position in the area of stellar designation. However, they are bullies and are abusing their position. Writers should be aware of that and not buy in hook, line and sinker to everything they are selling. Glennconti (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * They are sort of scammy. A friend proudly showed me a certificate with "her" name, and was rather crestfallen when I pointed out that no one she didn't know pretty well would ever use it.  Then too, these silly names show up in publicly-editable places like Wiki-sky, where they are a real nuisance. I have nothing against people shelling out money for emotional gratification, but I would as soon the results not appear in scientific venues. -- Elphion (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well let me think of a way of responding, so if your girlfriend bought some cosmetics for like $20 (about the price of a star naming) that were endorsed by Jennifer Lawrence and she put them on and came to you feeling great about herself, you would feel justified in telling her she looks nowhere near as pretty as Jennifer Lawrence. She would be crestfallen and then you would say the cosmetics company is "sort of scammy" for using Jennifer Lawrence to sell the cosmetics? Who is the bad actor in this story? You or the cosmetics company? (Sorry, my response is imperfect I know. I will try and come up with a better analogy). How about this? Do you enjoy telling joyful young children there is no Santa Claus too? (No. Still not right. I need more time). How about Christians? Do you make a point when you see them to say there is no God? And all their mumbling about praying is a real nuisance? Glennconti (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC) And if you worked in a scientific venue you would as soon not have your Christian coworkers wear their crosses to work? Glennconti (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC) I guess priests are "sort of scammy" tooGlennconti (talk)


 * Yes, I tend to give honest opinions when asked. -- Elphion (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As you say, it is your opinion. As far as "honest" goes, that is subjective. I don't want to get philosophical here but some time truth is in the eye of the beholder and crapping all over someone else's belief systems when they feel good about themselves hurts other people and sometimes pisses them off (in the case of religious beliefs). Maybe it is manners or tolerance of others or arrogance of confidence in one's own beliefs. You seem so certain that star naming by the IAU is somehow so much "true" or important or valid and some other organizations star naming which in your "opinion" is "false". I guess to you scientists and astronomers are your gods. Ha ha, if no one told you scientists are not infallible, their opinions are not paramount in all areas of discourse. Even in this area which you you feel they should be their purview, there is room for other ways of looking at things in the world. Respect for others, diversity of ideas, maybe you should think of others ideas as an biological ecosystem with genetic diversity. yes, I think this scientific metaphor is best for you to understand. An diverse ecosystem of ideas is better than a monolithic cloned single gene pool of ideas. Wouldn't you agree? Glennconti (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, the IAU's position of ridiculing lay people for naming stars with private registries, is reprehensible in my opinion. Who the heck do astronomers think they are that they can stomp on the feelings of folks and then blame the private registries for the damage they (the astronomers) cause. The private registries are doing things like consoling people who have lost a loved one and allowing them to feel better. What is the higher purpose here? Astronomers and scientists hear me. Please resist the temptation to act like a Nazi invading Poland when a lay person asks you to help them locate their star. The IAU in their FAQ has set a very poor example for you. It says "Chances are that they will either laugh their heads off" when professionals are ask about the private registry star name. In what world is it ok to laugh your heads off at sincere lay folk? Glennconti (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Remember the people want very much to do this (name a star for a loved one) and the IAU doesn't do it. Then you call the private registries scam artists.Glennconti (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC) Where is your compassion? Apparently this is all about the IAU's need to dominate and a lust for power. Disgusting really. Glennconti (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking your critique of the IAU a little too far. One of the motivations behind its founding was to avoid the sometimes vicious conflicts that arose in the naming of celestial objects, especially the more significant ones (reading how Neptune got its name is an eye-opener). This is part of its very-worthy-but-boring standardisation work. Having lots of people giving different names to celestial objects cuts across this. Also astronomers, like most scientists, tend to be left of centre and suspicious of commercial enterprises. This is not helped by some of them (not all) being scams and over-promising. Further, they had a policy of not naming stars (possibly because the process costs them money), which they've now changed because of public pressure, of which the commercial enterprises are a symptom. The stellar naming guidelines include "names of all individuals are prohibited for bright stars, except for rare cases with demonstrated historical precedence and widespread international diffusion", so it seems they'll eventually move on to less bright stars and possibly even allow the public to nominate a star after a loved one. Why not? There's plenty of stars! I agree they sometimes come across as a little pompous; but oftentimes that's because it's an international organisation and most things they say are a compromise among people of differing cultures. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand the need to keep the peace in scientific circles and I understand better now the IAU's reasoning for trying to control the academic naming process. It's funny you say scientists are suspicious of commercial enterprises. I have seen this disdain from them for organizations with a profit motive on the internet blogs. It is a theme. But all people need to eat. Further, it seems from what you are saying the motivations of astronomers could be called into question too. Why the vicious fights in scientific circles over the names? Could it be that pride, glory, fame, intellectual bragging rights are their motivations? How is this more honorable then people merely looking to survive monetarily? No need to answer, it is a minor point. However, I do understand the IAU's need to exert some control in scientific circles (based on the infighting for glory by astronomers), but why the need to VILIFY private registries? It just is not called for. The private registries serve a function in society. Glennconti (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Declaration of interest
Please note that the poster here called Glenn Conti is named as the "contact person" for a company called Star Namer which recently issued this release http://www.pressreleaserocket.net/starnamer-declares-an-equal-right-to-name-celestial-stars/478977/ The arguments in the press release will sound familiar to anyone reading Glenn Conti's posts above. Skeptic2 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is true I wrote the press release. But, that in no way invalidates the arguments presented here or in the press release. This article is dominated by the views of the IAU and astronomers and scientists in general. I have been trying unsuccessfully for six years to bring an alternative voice to this discussion. Please see the date of my original post on this talk page above. I have made no inappropriate edits to the article understanding my responsibilities as a Wikipedia editor. To be fair, if my voice is silenced then so should the voices of astronomers. Then where would this article be? Also, ad hominem attacks against me are not appropriate. There is a different point of view that should be considered in this area.Glennconti (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that you have a commercial interest in this matter is not an ad hom. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree you did not, but lets not go there (to ad hominems). You are attempting to undermine my arguments indirectly though. Do you have any interest in astronomy or the IAU that you should disclose?Glennconti (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it is not a commercial interest.Skeptic2 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the following: A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.


 * Do you have any OTHER INTEREST interests which could possibly corrupt your motivation in this area? Glennconti (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you did say yes, that is you ALSO have an Interest here. Need I remind you that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But this was my expectation that the editors of this article are by and large astronomers. Please sir, don't try to discredit my words by using such tactics.Glennconti (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear, we really are into the ad homs now, aren’t we? My interests are in providing full and accurate information about the process of naming stars. You seem concerned that this will harm your business. I wonder why. The page you reference above, which I hadn't seen before, http://www.delscope.demon.co.uk/information/namingstars.htm puts the situation very well. Thanks for pointing it out. Skeptic2 (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. My interest is also in providing full and accurate information about the process of naming stars. You are casting aspersions on my arguments by questioning my motives. So, wouldn't you say turn about is fair play? You have an interest in maintaining the IAU status quo, which you haven't made clear and are hiding behind a pseudonym. I am not. Because I am interested in full and accurate information, I am required to point out the many problems with the delscope article.


 * 1) It is old and dated in that it says naming a star currently costs consumers about $80. At this time (please google "name a star") a star can be named on average for about $20 (Some places will do it for about $15 or even less). The article says also that the cost to name a star at a private registry should be about $8 and that a private registry should do "very well out of you purchasing one of their products". However, when listing the costs associated with naming a star the following costs were not mentioned by the astronomer. a) advertising costs which are substantial, b) website and phone call center expenses c) credit card processing fees, d) wages for personnel (for customer service, packing and shipping, transport, bookkeeping, professional fees - lawyers/accountants etc), e) Taxes and permits. The private registries are providing a professional product and to do so entails costs not listed by the astronomer (he is being very naive). What the astronomer does not realize is that in a free enterprise market driven system, no company can make out-sized profits for very long due to the pressures of competition. Naming a star is a highly competitive business (please again refer to the google search results) and therefore only the best low cost providers can survive (ie left to market forces the too much profit "problem" rights itself and astronomers need not be looking into the other guy's pocket and then cast aspersions. I could cast similar aspersions. For example, in a scientific or academic community these market forces are not at work and wages for astronomers increase automatically with inflation based on super-outrageous yearly student tuition hikes. Academics should be ashamed at the burdens being caused to student families - excessive student loans / draining life's savings etc. It takes real guts to point the finger at private registries method of obtaining a livelihood when astronomer's skirts aren't so clean. However, as I have said people all have to eat. This is what I meant - I do not begrudge some one a legal livelihood as astronomers seem to want to do. Please come out of your ivory tower. Human nature shows people are motivated by profit and this nature has been harnessed for the good of all in socially responsible free market systems. (I would remind everyone of what is currently happening in left-leaning Venezuela where market forces are not allowed.) CONCLUSION: Profit is not inherently bad and the profits involved in private star naming are fair and not out-sized.


 * 2) The delscope article also say that the IAU is "official" where private registries are not. As I have said the IAU is not a government body and has no legal authority to name stars. It is not official and claiming authority based on international recognition is spurious as I have said.


 * 3) The delscope article says that astronomers are doing a "huge favor" in helping locating a lay persons star. Astronomers that are accessing the public and in a position to be answering questions about a star's location apparently are reluctant to do their job. Please leave your position in the public eye if you are going to ridicule a sincere lay person for wanting to locate a star. Also, private registries are much much much better now than at the time of this article at providing star location information to their customers. Again, market forces require the feature that customers can also locate their star online at a private registries website.


 * 4) The delscope article characterizes the naming of stars at private registries as "meaningless". Apparently this astronomer has never had to console a loved one at the loss of a relative as private star registries do on almost a daily basis. Again, lay folks want to name stars, the IAU doesn't do it and the private registries are providing a necessary function to the people. It maybe sentimental but it is certainly not meaningless.

The point of me referencing the delscope article is that it says 94% of people were informed that the astronomer looks down on private registry star naming however, 54% of those well informed people will STILL DO IT ANYWAY? The sentimental people don't care what an astronomer thinks of their desire to name stars. They want to do this. Glennconti (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Glenn, Your company provides a novelty certificate in return for a fee, which you are perfectly entitled to do. You know that no one else will take any notice of it, not even your rival star-naming companies. Nothing you say here is likely to change that. I suggest you now get on with your business and everyone else will continue to ignore you as they have always done. Cheers. Skeptic2 (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir, I would be more than happy for a benign neglect. However, the IAU has made it their policy to unfairly vilify private industry star naming. As I said in the press release, I will not stand for being bullied by people who misrepresent the facts. Glennconti (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Further, if by saying "everyone" you mean astronomers, you are showing your arrogance. To me "everyone" is the vastly larger number of common folk who care about these private services and want to name stars. Glennconti (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of the Article
I have recently expanded the article by two sentences as concerns non-scientific private star naming companies. I have been very hesitant to do so. Seriously, the primary focus of this article should rightly be stellar designation by astronomers. But owing to the significant interest in star naming by individual consumers, I definitely think they should be mentioned. Further, if they are to be mentioned an unbiased view needs to be presented. Another editor (Skeptic2) expanded the article to include a reference to an astronomers survey. The survey includes both facts and opinions. My first sentence I added pertains to consumer motivation to use private star registries. An understanding of their behavior is important. The second sentence I added was a clarification of the "dangers" of private star naming that would necessitates a "warning". However, the danger is minimized by the IAU so I felt compelled to mention it. Further expansion on the topic of private company star naming should be undertaken very judiciously in my opinion. But let's have what we have be fair, factual, worthy of us and balanced. Glennconti (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Myth of the Astronomer as White Knight
I'm sorry but I also feel compelled to say one more thing. There is a another fallacious theme that astronomers believe in that needs to be addressed. That is, the heroic myth that astronomers are some how white knights protecting the poor stupid peasants that are being preyed upon by insidious confidence men. And, this then justifies their attack on private industry star naming companies. This position is fallacious in many ways. First and foremost it assumes stupidity on the part of consumers. American consumers are not stupid and assuming they are such is just plain arrogance on the part of astronomers. I dare say there are not any better, more savvy, internet aware, information conscious consumer anywhere in the world. Secondly, there are consumer watch dog agencies, the free press, government law enforcement and others whose job it is to professionally protect consumers. This is not the job of astronomers; they are not white knights. The real motivation of astronomers here is to protect their turf. This is pure self interest and not noble. Scientist are held in a position of trust by the public and are abusing that trust in this instance. This abuse of the public trust is a second reason this pursuit in this area is not noble. If astronomers want to be junior G-men in addition to scientists, please use your acumen to fully discover all the facts before you go on the attack. The IAU has had a decades old policy of attacking private star naming companies. This is bad policy, it is old, outdated, wrong headed and it needs to be changed. Glennconti (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Change of article title needed?
Although this article is currently entitled 'Stellar designation' a lot of the content concerns stellar names as well as designations. Presumably on the basis that either designations and names were the same thing or that names were a subset of designations? However, the IAU now states (Naming Stars) that it is keen to make a distinction between names and designations. As the IAU is a very significant (though not the only) player when it comes to the naming and designating of stars, it seems that neither of those possible motivations for the current article name continue to hold good. In my opinion, we either need two separate articles on stellar names and stellar designations or the article title needs amending to 'Stellar designation and naming' or 'Stellar designations and names' or somesuch. As the current article is not particularly big, retitling seems preferable. What do others think? Cuddlyopedia (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No problem with renaming the article as you suggest. Splitting the article to offload proper names in a separate page is OK too. I don't have a strong opinion either way. -- Elphion (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, with some support and no objections I have moved the article to 'Stellar designations and names' and modified the opening to reflect this. The article could probably do with some updating. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like a paraphrasing of a single source: the IAU naming stars committee web pages. The opening sentence reflects this bias with the incorrect statement that designations are primarily mediated by the IAU, while they are in fact largely ad-hoc. While the IAU-CSN has some official standing in the matter, it also has an agenda (the promotion and popularisation, as well as the formalisation and standardisation, of proper names for stars) and does not currently reflect the most common usage for the majority of the stars in its lists. I plan on making a number of edits to the article to reflect popular usage where it contrasts with the desired outcome of the IAU CSN. This would be your moment to stand up for the article in its current form. Lithopsian (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

HIP
Why is HIP not part of the catalogue mentioned?

There are at lot of articles named with the HIP catalogue stars and named there after.

They could have been named with the HD catalogue number instead but are only redirected to the HIP number. Even hought HD is used more in the scientific world than the HIP number. Simbad list the HD star designation when you search for stars using HIP designation.

Agerskov (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)