Talk:Furuhjelm 46

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Furuhjelm 46?

I would suggest "GJ 661AB" as a page header and identifier rather than the above name which is non-standard. Indeed the article fails to cite the source for such a name. Furthermore the Link "Furuhjelm 46 at the SIMBAD Astronomical Database." returns:" 'Furuhjelm 46': this identifier has an incorrect format for catalog: Furuhjelm : Furuhjelm." Brobof (talk) 15:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the name to HD 155876, which is what SIMBAD prefers. Also, for some reason the co-ordinates were those of Wolf 359. I have fixed this. There may be other errors as well. Kjhskj75 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it back to Furujhelm 46. SIMBAD for whatever reason does not seem to have inputted this designation into its database, despite the fact that the papers that focus on it refer to it as "Furuhjelm 46", as a Google Scholar search shows. Thank you for fixing the coordinates though. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not on either of the articles pointed to on the page it isn't. Ref 1 uses "WDS 17121+4541", "Kui 79" and "HD 155876" and ref 3 uses "Gl 661", all of which use much better known catalogues, which are what people need if they are going to do further research. Searching Google scholar brings up a paper on "Fish oil supplementation in pregnancy". Also you have now broken the links to SIMBAD in the "See also" section. Incidentally there are 3 Furuhjelm catalogues (See http://cds.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/Dic-Simbad?/4176031). Can you say which one it is in ? Kjhskj75 (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the list of references to this object. Every single one that does an in-depth study on it refers to it as "Furuhjelm 46". StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing since 1960 though. The name is obsolete. Kjhskj75 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also been no in-depth studies on it at all since 1960. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the Wikipedia policy on star names: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(astronomical_objects)#Stars 78.144.153.149 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote that, we should use the HD or Gliese designation "unless an earlier catalogue number is more widely recognised", which appears to be the case here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It hasn't been recognized AT ALL (except by you) since the 1950s, not by SIMBAD and not AFAICS in any of the dozens of papers published since then. The fact that these are not "in-depth" is irrelevant, since no-one is going to write one about such an unimportant system, unless a planet is discovered there, in which case it will get a Kepler designation. Did it occur to you to ask yourself WHY SIMBAD recognizes 30 designations for this system, but not your favourite one ? Kjhskj75 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of 27 articles published since 2000 the names used in them were:

number	designation
13	Gl 661 or GJ 661
10	HD 155876
10	HIP 84140
6	WDS 17121+4540
5	KUI 79
2	BD+45 2505
1	RX J1712.0+4540
0	Furuhjelm 46

(some articles use more than one designation, as many as five in one case) Kjhskj75 (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "favorite designation" for any star. Anyways, in a Google Scholar search of all years, I get 26 results for "Furuhjelm 46", 9 results for "HD 155876", one result for "Gliese 661", 57 results for "Gl 661" (which may be more than Furuhjelm 46, but most are not even about astronomy), 41 results for "GJ 661" (again with most being not about astronomy), and only 3 results for "HIP 84140". When you eliminate the Gliese results that are not about astronomy, it is clear that Furuhjelm 46 has over history been used the most of the designations. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for Google Scholar then.

So why didn't it find the other 7 papers that reference "Hip 84140" ? Because in many articles the data is presented in tables with "Hip" or "HD" or "GJ" in the header and "84140" or "155876" or "661" three quarters of the way down. Google, which is just a dumb search engine, cannot see the phrases "HIP 84140" or "HD 155876" or "GJ 661" does not index them, and so you will not get them in search results.

SIMBAD, on the other hand, extracts data from tables correctly and indexes them, and also knows about the multiple names. So if you search it under one name, you get articles referring to all the others. And yes even the ones that talked about "Furuhjelm 46", so long as they also used "BD+45 2505", which I think they usually did.

Searching "Furuhjelm 46" on Google scholar does not find anything after 1970 and searching for it on Simbad yields nothing since it does not know the name. Searching using more recent names on Google scholar yields more recent (and therefore more accurate and relevant) data. And on Simbad it retrieves almost everything. Kjhskj75 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter when a designation used, if it still has the most uses of any designation. However, I have added the Gliese and HD names into the main body text of the article, which should alleviate any confusion. That doesn't mean I think that the title should change, but feel free to start a WP:RM if you think it should be, and if consensus goes against me, so be it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see this hasn't been discussed since 2014, but if the original author of this article still wants Furuhjelm 46, I suggest it is moved off the primary position here and on the List of star systems within 20–25 light-years page. I suggest it use the Gliese designation as the primary [titled designation]. The use of Furuhjelm 46 was indeed confusing to me until I read the Talk Page, since I find it no where in relatively current literature except on this article and in Google Scholar. To me personally, I need more than just Google when I want accurate, scholarship-level data [it definitely is not specifically an astronomical source; I believe Google usage is still frowned upon by many scholars and university professors if used as a sole source of reference work, because it often garners info based on popularity or raw data]. Yet, even that source for F-46 seemed to use antiquated material. I suggest the intro be changed to "Gliese 661, also known as HD 155876 (which some sources like ARICNS only desiginate for star A), and as Furuhjelm 46 by some pre-1970 astronomical sources". I have almost equal concern regarding the HD 155876 designation; although Simbad uses it [they seem to lump Gliese 661 A and B together, as they do for some other binaries], other sources like ACRINS use it only for star A. Many binaries receive their own HD number, so that too gives me pause about using HD 155876 for both members. It might help assure the readers if more sources can be referenced showing this particular HD designation is used for both members (especially because Simbad has jumbled [rarely, albeit] a few binary subsets in the past, and even fixed one I brought to their attention). Regardless, it was confusing [to me] because I couldn't track down any contemporary astronomical sources for F-46 (again, excluding Google, which is not recognized as an original source of such). Even the graphic table on this article follows the nomenclature used by most current astronomical sources: Gliese 661. Regardless of all this, giving prominence to Furuhjelm 46, when the majority of other Wikipedia star pages refuse to give like prominence to other antiquated star names, seems to add to the confusion of readers like me (who love consistency). These other articles reference old names that are no longer in genersl use, but not as the primary name. I think this article should do the same, or else at least site more contemporary sources that are more universally used by the astonomical community [i.e., not only Google]. Tesseract501 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furuhjelm 46 → ? – (1) Current Title is obsolete, has not been used to designate this system in any journal article since 1970.
(2) Is not known to SIMBAD. (see [1])
(3) Contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Stars.
I Suggest "HD 155876" or "Gliese 661" (the original article title) instead. Both of these are in current use. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Kjhskj75 (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer Gliese 661; though HD 155876 is acceptable. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; in order of preference: Furuhjelm 46, HD 155876, Gliese 661. See my posts in above section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.