Talk:WISE 1506+7027

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: no consensus. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

– per the reason for the move at Talk:WISE 1541-2250: shorter names are used in the scientific literature because the long versions are unwiedly and these articles were created with the shorter titles. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Hekerui (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 → WISE 1506+7027 (17ly)
 * WISEPA J012333.21+414203.9 → WISE 0123+4142
 * WISEPA J015010.86+382724.3 → WISE 0150+3827
 * WISEPA J020625.26+264023.6 → WISE 0206+2640
 * WISEPA J022105.94+384202.9 → WISE 0221+3842
 * WISE J222055.31-362817.4 → WISE 2220-3628 (26ly)
 * WISE J071322.55-291751.9 → WISE 0713-2917 (23ly)
 * WISE J073444.02-715744.0 → WISE 0734-7157
 * WISE J035934.06-540154.6 → WISE 0359-5401
 * WISE J053516.80-750024.9 → WISE 0535-7500 (19ly)
 * WISE J014656.66+423410.0 → WISE 0146+4234 (20ly)
 * WISEPA J022623.98-021142.8 → WISE 0226-0211
 * WISEPA J030533.54+395434.4 → WISE 0305+3954
 * WISEPA J030724.57+290447.6 → WISE 0307+2904
 * WISEPA J031325.96+780744.2 → WISE 0313+7807 (28ly)
 * WISEPA J041022.71+150248.5 → WISE 0410+1502 (20ly)
 * WISEPA J041054.48+141131.6 → WISE 0410+1411
 * WISEPA J044853.29-193548.5 → WISE 0448-1935
 * WISEPA J050003.05-122343.2 → WISE 0500-1223
 * WISEPA J051317.28+060814.7 → WISE 0513+0608
 * WISEPA J052536.33+673952.3 → WISE 0525+6739
 * WISEPA J052844.51-330823.9 → WISE 0528-3308
 * WISEPA J053957.02-103436.5 → WISE 0539-1034
 * WISEPA J054231.26-162829.1 → WISE 0542-1628
 * WISEPA J061135.13-041024.0 → WISE 0611-0410
 * WISEPA J061208.69-492023.8 → WISE 0612-4920
 * WISEPA J061213.93-303612.7 → WISE 0612-3036
 * WISEPA J061407.49+391236.4 → WISE 0614+3912
 * WISEPA J062309.94-045624.6 → WISE 0623-0456
 * WISEPA J062542.21+564625.5 → WISE 0625+5646
 * Conditional oppose all they should all include the "J" so instead of "WISE 0625+5646" it should be "WISE J0625+5646" etc, as it is shorthand for J2000.0 and why we have been renaming articles to use J or B (B1950.0) particularly, since most of the time something without a J is indicative of B1950.0 -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The discoverers don't seem to mind in the paper where these were published. These are abbreviations that simplify the names, someone who wants to know whether it's J or B can check out the full information in the infobox. Hekerui (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional support all – the undiscussed move of these all to the longer names does not appear to serve any useful purpose. I have no opinion on the question of whether to include the J.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I suspect these will all shortly become redirects to a summary article anyway, see below. If so better not to move them now. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm confident that these will eventually be redirected to an appropriate list, e.g. List of brown dwarfs. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment If these articles are likely to be merged in the near future, this may be a moot point, but it's worth giving this RM another week before calling it. --BDD (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Does, or should, Naming conventions (astronomical objects) provide guidance on this? See also a related earlier move discussion at Talk:J0651 – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Maybe and yes. That guideline doesn't seem to consider the impact of WP:precision when the only contenders are technical names, and it probably should. Andrewa (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The J0651 result fails WP:PRECISE since it isn't precise enough to be meaningful. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * J0651 kept its name because the short version is commonly used and abbreviates the technical version without need for disambiguation. The same is true here. Hekerui (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding "The J0651 result fails WP:PRECISE since it isn't precise enough to be meaningful.", you should be aware of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For example, George Jones is considered precise enough to be meaningful, because Wikipedia editors have decided that he is the primary topic for his name. Others with the same name are disambiguated at George Jones (disambiguation). J0651 is primary topic for its name and there is not even a hatnote on the article for any other J0651, because as far as I know, there are no others on Wikipedia.  So, what those who favor longer names are advocating is an exception to the WP:PRECISE policy, as described for example Bothell, Washington. Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic,Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles. – and, for these articles, Naming conventions (astronomical objects) – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the short name redirects to the long name, and if the article lists all that star's names, why move the articles? The user finds the article as easily. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose all. The time has come to move on. The merge discussion seems to have stalled. Andrewa (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (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.

Notability
Do we really want an article on each of these 100 or so low-magnitude stars discovered by WISE? I looked at the first two of them WISEPC J150649.97+702736.0 and WISEPA J012333.21+414203.9 and the text is virtually identical. This information, if we want it at all, is far better set out in a single article List of stars discovered by WISE or similar.

The references are all papers by the discoverers. This appears to violate Notability (astronomical objects).

If we indiscriminantly create articles for every asteroid, KBO, exoplanet and brown dwarf as it is catalogued, we will have an enormous number of uninformative articles. Andrewa (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, except that some WISE objects seem more relevant because of their closenes to our system. Hekerui (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They are more relevant than more distant similar objects, agree, but we currently lack any means to even detect those more distsnt objects as individuals, and at greater distances there are theoretical constraints on what we can ever know about individual objects. But that's not the point. We do need to draw the line somewhere. We can't have an article on every atom, or even on every star. Is a brown dwarf that is one of a hundred or so close enough to be just within the limits of our current observatories notable? Is their proximity enough to push them over the line, while the possibly billions of more distant ones miss out?


 * I was wrong on the detail here, 2MASS detected some more distant brown dwarfs than these apparently, but the point remains valid. Andrewa (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The current guideline clearly says no, in my opinion. Not quite. It's close but clear.


 * And it might change. We have articles on more than a hundred countries and more than fifty individual models of Fender electric guitars. Even assuming that the guideline on astronomical objects does not change, if other people start publishing articles etc. on or mentioning individual brown dwarfs, those individual brown dwarfs will then pass the current notability test. But the evidence to date is that they don't yet pass it, as far as I can see. Andrewa (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If any particular WISE objects receive specific coverage that makes it notable, then it will have its separate article. That should probably be our sole criterion, not arbitrary factors like proximity. --87.79.208.25 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no evidence that either of the two I looked at satisfy those criteria. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few more listed in the move request above. Also, I was agreeing with you. --87.79.208.25 (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree on both counts. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Andrewa (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So, where to from here? It's quite a lot of work to assemble all of these into a table at List of stars discovered by WISE or some similar title, so I'm reluctant to do it unless we have a fairly clear consensus that such a list is needed. But perhaps I could start just with a few, without redirecting the original articles to it for the moment, at least until the RM above runs its course. Andrewa (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be list of objects discovered by WISE ? IIRC, not everything has been a star. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if that's true, then that's a better title. For the moment I'm more interested in the principle. Are these individual objects each individually worthy of articles? The evidence is not encouraging so far. Andrewa (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think deleting a star, brown dwarf, or exo-planet within 20 light-years of the Sun would be a case of just pointing at a policy or guideline. -- Kheider (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I'm afraid I think that is a straw man. Deletion is not being proposed, rather redirection to a list is the alternative. Agree that the essay to which you link is relevant to one of my arguments, and an interesting perspective, but I think the argument in question is valid and relevant in this case, despite what that essay says about it. See also my reply to your cross-post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Of the above listed 30 WISE-discovered brown dwarfs only 3 are estimated to be 20 ly or less from the Sun. These are the ones that I would not re-direct. I do not see an enormous number with my suggestion. -- Kheider (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That strikes me as a good way forward if consensus could be achieved on it. The closest of them is probably notable just because of that. The four closest doesn't seem unreasonable. Andrewa (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember, I chose the articles above randomly, there are many more of type and we should probably consider all of them when deciding on a feature like distance. Hekerui (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Category:WISE objects I see the following additional 5 WISE-discovered brown dwarfs as estimated to be 20 ly or less from the Sun: -- Kheider (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. In effect, then, you're proposing that if a star, brown dwarf, or exo-planet is within 20 light-years of the Sun, then that's a prima facie case for notability, and that articles on other WISE-discovered objects for which there are no refs apart from the general catalogues of atronomical objects (including the published WISE data) should become redirects. Have I got that right? Andrewa (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It is an effort to find a reasonable compromise that should not generate an excess of articles as was the case with the list of minor planets. Of course the big problem with the main-belt asteroids was 3 or 4 bots searching the JPL database and auto-generating thousands of articles over several years. -- Kheider (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Which could also happen here, could it not? The lead of List of minor planets seems to have been corrupted, BTW. Andrewa (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Bot issues are fixed by simply requiring a brown dwarf be within 20ly of the Sun (assuming it does not meet other notability guides). The main-belt asteroids could have been fixed before the bots got out of control by requiring main-belt asteroids to have something along the lines of H<10 (diameter greater than ~50km). -- Kheider (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

2MASS etc
And it's not only the 160+ members of Category:WISE objects we need to consider. For example, Category:2MASS objects contains less than two dozen articles as of yet, but according to the article at 2MASS there are now more than 300,000,000 catalogued sources discovered by that project, including 173 already identified as brown dwarfs. Where do we draw the line on these?

And computer-generated catalogues like the ones we're dealing with here will only proliferate. The two WISE articles I looked at above could have been generated by a bot, I don't think they were, but they could have been from the content and structure. A bot to generate 173 articles on the 2MASS brown dwarfs would be fairly simple to write and would generate stubs just as useful as those under discussion here. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

On the other hand, I think the existing articles do represent a great deal of work by some well-intentioned and obviously hard-working contributors, who have every right to set up a WikiProject and start developing their own notability guideline (yes, I know that's not the theory of a WikiProject, but it's the way it works in practice, as the competing Tree of Life naming conventions testify). There are several issues to consider.

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. Andrewa (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 2MASS discussions should ***NOT*** be taking place on this talk page, it should take place at WT:ASTRO, or atleast a 2MASS article page (with a 2MASS name, not some other object with some more prominent non-2MASS name) -- (such as Talk:2MASS). This page isn't even named with a 2MASS designation, nor does it seem to carry a 2MASS designation, making this discussion highly inappropriate. If people paid attention to just 2MASS objects, they would never see this discussion. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Removing your  and   templates and their corresponding bottoms.


 * Please read the instructions for these templates, and in particular This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors. Surely it goes without saying that neither should it be used by an involved editor to unilaterally end a discussion. Or perhaps the previous contribution from this IP was not you. Create an account. It's free.


 * The discussion I am initiating here is not intended to lead directly to action on the 2MASS articles. Agree that would be inappropriate. But it is relevant to the still-open RM above.


 * Agree discussion on the broader issues should be on the WikiProject talk page. See my links to it above. But closing and hiding the discussion here is premature at least. Andrewa (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an off-topic discussion, unrelated to the merger of WISE objects or the WISE rename, or the topic of this article (which does not appear to have a 2MASS designation). Therefore it should be hatted. If you wish to pursue discussion, copy your discussion point to a different talk page, where it is on-topic. (such as the wikiproject talk page, or Talk:2MASS). Further, this is a new discussion, since you created this discussion section as a new discussion, so there is no previous participation. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that this article does not have a 2MASS designation. Disagree with your interpretations of new discussion etc., and wonder whether perhaps you didn't notice that I created this section as a subsection of the discussion. That is its intent and if you do not wish to comment, or if you wish to say why you think the points I make in it are irrelevant to the discussion of which it is part, please do so. Andrewa (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You opened a new discussion with the header, and stated it was about issues other than WISE, by bringing up concerns that have no relation to the topic of this article. This is clearly what is considered Off-Topic, by Talk Page Guidelines WP:TALK, which says to delete the discussion or hat it. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The new section was always intended as part of the existing Notability section and discussion, and I think that was quite clearly indicated by the nesting of the new section within that existing section, by going one level of subheading deeper. The relevance to that discussion is already described in some detail above, and I think we need to just acknowledge and accept that we disagree on this, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * From WP:TALK Talk Page Guidelines:
 * Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal.
 * Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic, the general practice is to hide it by using the templates collapse top and collapse bottom or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page.
 * -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We disagree as to whether the post was off-topic. You say you agree that here is the place to discuss that disagreement, yet you persist in cross-posting . Your latest post (here and there) says nothing that you have not said before or that I have not answered before. Nobody else has commented. Let's move on.


 * I support your desire not to clutter talk pages. But isn't it a bit ironic that you're cluttering both of these so badly? I agree that a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects is a good idea, I was about to start it myself but you got there first. But the mess you have now created at both pages and the relentless pursuit of your personal views on procedure is not likely to encourage others to join in either discussion, and we are seeing this. Cool it and collaborate. Andrewa (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggested a solution early on (move it to Talk:2MASS or WT:ASTRO) which would have ended this thread early; It was in the summary I put in to the hat that I placed on this section. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously I didn't think it was a solution. I'm surprised I even have to say that, so maybe it's not as obvious as I thought. Andrewa (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects diff. Andrewa (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Refocus
There seems to me to be a consensus forming that


 * The majority of the 30 articles in the RM above should instead be changed to redirects to either a single new article or an existing list such as (but not necessarily) List of nearest stars.
 * A few of these articles however are useful stubs that will grow.

Is that agreed? If so we can look at details. Note this is only for WISE objects. It might be argued we should wait on the outcome of the discussion now taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects before deciding on action here. But this can work either way; A decision here will also give input as to what is a good general guideline. Andrewa (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As per AstroCog's comments in the Requested move section, I think the List of brown dwarfs would be a better article for them. List of nearest stars is a much higher quality article but only covers objects within 5.00 pc of the Sun. The distance estimates to many of the WISE brown dwarfs is still very rough. -- Kheider (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Happy with that. Some may eventually be listed in both; The question for now is where the redirects should point for now.


 * However AstroCog did indicate that they thought they all would become redirects . I'm not sure how to proceed to a decision on that, given that the relevant discussion since then has just been the two of us, and that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects there are a number of comments suggesting that distance from Sol is not a good test.


 * Perhaps it helps if I unambiguously support there being some distance criterion, with the closest objects having their own articles. I did say that before but not in so many words.


 * Changed my opinion on this (see also the WikiProject Talk page). Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The specific distance of this criterion may need to be varied as more data comes in.


 * Comments? Andrewa (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The current version as I write IMO at least scrapes in for notability as a useful stub and should not be merged. Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Haven't really changed my opinion on this, but again I'll go along with the consensus at the WikiProject, which is possibly against it. Andrewa (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick update on the RM here... relevant discussion is still proceeding at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects eg. There's a little trap in that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects is auto-archived, so if discussion there is closed or just dies it will break all the links here to it. Just something to bear in mind, and when that happens we just need to find it in the archive and link to that from here. Andrewa (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But it now seems to have stalled. Not surprising, there's an enormous amount of work to do and few volunteers. Andrewa (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Move
The move discussion was side-tracked by the notability discussion, so I went ahead and made the move. A resolution on the other question has nothing to do with the name. Hekerui (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Discoverer constellation designation
Using a discoverer constellation designation WISE 1506+7027 would be Kirkpatrick Ursae Minoris or Kirkpatrick UMi. Astredita (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)