Talk:Table of stars with Bayer designations

Do we really need this table?

Do we really need this table? Every Bayer designation (including Latin lowercase and uppercase letters plus superscripts) are listed in the list of stars by constellation articles.--JyriL ^talk 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for it. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This table would be much more useful if it contained all stars with Bayer designation, not only those having separate article in Wikipedia. --Filemon (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is incomplete. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still incomplete? Lithopsian (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Layout changes

I've made some fairly significant changes to the layout of the tables. I've removed the individual horizontal scrollbars for each table. I've also modified the first table so that each individual Bayer designation does not wrap. The table is quite a lot wider, but it was already wider than any reasonable page. The table now is likely to be less than a page long on many devices. Mostly though, it is just easier to read, especially where there are superscripts on multiple stars with the same designation. I'll give it a while to see if there are huge objections then do the rest. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes -- the single table format is much better. -- Elphion (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]