Talk:WD 2359−434
Latest comment: 2 months ago by BD2412 in topic Requested move 24 February 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | On 24 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Gliese 915. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Requested move 24 February 2024 edit
- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. After extended time for discussion, a consensus for the proposed move has not emerged. BD2412 T 17:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
WD 2359−434 → Gliese 915 – According to WP:STARNAMES, for stars that have no Bayer or Flamsteed designations, the Henry Draper Catalogue (HD) number, variable-star designation or the Gliese number should be used for the article name about the star. As WD 2359–434 has no HD number or Variable-star designation, the name Gliese 915 should be used. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose That's not a hard rule; generally whatever name is most commonly used in sources is preferred. Searching ADS shows that the WD designation is more common than any form of the Gliese designation. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Astronomy has been notified of this discussion. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.