Talk:HD 20782

Typo in table title

The table title for the HD 20781 system is wrong. It should say "The HD 20781 system" instead of "The HD 20782 system". I can't for the life of me figure out how to fix the typo. A8875 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to use the "|name=" tag. The planetboxes are for individual stars. This article is doing double duty as a system article.--Zimriel (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A star, not a system

On THAT topic... the fact that this is a star article but is covering another star in its system, is a problem.

I had some related angst with HD 196067 (which has planets) / 196068 (which doesn't as far as we know). A commenter kindly pointed out that they could be bundled into Mu2 Octantis. And he's right; Struve 1341 already follows this standard. So Mu2 Octantis is where I moved all my stuff. If HD 196068 turns out to have planets too, it'll be time to build separate entries for 196067 and 196068. Ditto HD 106515: it'll get separate LTT 4598 and 4599.

Short-term, I fixed (hacked) the "typo" here (and in the systems noted above). What this article needs long-term is a name for the HD 20781 / 20782 system. Then the system data can be moved there, and each star can get its own article which will imply its own planetbox.--Zimriel (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 01 May 2014

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: not moved. Consensus seems to be that instead of moving HD 20781 and HD 20782 should be created as a new article to cover both this article (HD 20782) and it's relative HD 20782. Jenks24 (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HD 20782 → HD 20781 and HD 20782 – This article deals with both members of the binary system comprising the stars HD 20781 and HD 20782, it therefore makes sense to reflect that in the article title. While there are double star designations that cover the system, a search of SIMBAD indicates that they are very rarely used compared with the HD designations. It therefore makes sense to combine the two in the article title, similar to the article about Mizar and Alcor. --Relisted. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC) 77.57.25.250 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support; makes sense, and see other articles where a pair of stars are referred to by both designations. They exist. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Split create a new article at HD 20781 and HD 20782, to complement HD 20781 and strip binary system information from this article to create the new one. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Provided there is enough content to make a split worthwhile rather than just multiplying stubs, I'd agree with this suggestion. At present this article doesn't really have enough content to justify making it into multiple articles (it's even tagged as a stub itself). 77.57.25.250 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally my philosophy is that if the stars are in a system, then they should be in the same article, but if they are merely naked-eye doubles, then they should have separate articles provided that they are both independently notable per WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Each of the two stars have planets, so I think it is reasonable to split off the binary system as its own article, leaving the planetary system information at each stars' articles. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Was the move request understood before rejection?

Two years have gone by and apparently no new details have arisen on either of the stars in the pair. The request by victor falk at 00:29, 22 May 2014 seems to me to be to combine the articles on 20781 and 20782 into a single article, with a table for the planets of each, and all the info currently in the two articles; but the rejection of this suggestion says "Consensus seems to be that, instead of moving, HD 20781 and HD 20782 should be created as a new article to cover both this article (HD 20782) and its relative HD 20782". That seems to be calling for precisely what the original request was to do. Whether or not the original was best described as a "move request", the decision was in fact to do exactly what it apparently called for, but this was described as a rejection when in fact it was agreeing with the request, but apparently it completely misstated what had been asked for which was actually what it concluded was wanted! Or is it all so badly explained that I have misunderstood the situation?

So: what precisely to we mean by a move request? And how do we word one like this, so that it does not get rejected when those considering what to do appear to have agreed with the proposer about what would be best for this twin subject? Although in the last 2 years nobody has done anything about producing the combined article that both the proposer and the rejectors called for? And before we forget it, can we improve the explanations in the Wikipedia writing manual, and the style, and writing, and change request guidance, so that messes such as this appears to be a classic example of can be avoided in future? Iph (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They ate terrestrials

Says:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519215039.htm

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]