Talk:G Doradus

On 1 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to 28 G. Doradus. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 1 January 2024

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: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G Doradus → 28 G. Doradus – G Doradus is not a real Bayer designation, and when you search for ‘G Doradus’, you’ll more likely get results for Gamma Doradus or the Gamma Doradus variable. Very misleading. Astronomical Editor (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that the text says The bayer designation "G Doradus" was not assigned by Benjamin Gould or Lacaille. It merely arose due to the designation assigned by Gould; 28 G. Doradus. If this is the case I agree that the page should be moved, but it's tagged with "citation needed". Do you have a source for it? SevenSpheres (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but this designation seems to be created by Wikipedia. Only the Wikipedia search result shows “G Doradus”. Astronomical Editor (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in SIMBAD. SevenSpheres (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm late to the discussion, but the claim is from page 137 in Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others". I meant to put the citation in there earlier, but I forgot to do that. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Astronomy has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The only object known by this exact name, and there's no need to include a confusing-looking number in front of it. If people are confused by Gamma Doradus etc. we can give them a hatnote. — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relist, to allow further discussion of whether a hatnote will be sufficient BilledMammal (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there is an explanation for the weird Bayer designation in Wagman (2003) on page 137. Speed doesn't always mean quality 400Weir (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Amakuru. A hatnote would be nice, though, since there's no point in potentially confusing someone when we can avoid doing so. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.