Talk:Teegarden's Star: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:35, 7 February 2013

Astronomy: Astronomical objects C‑class Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Teegarden

Who is Teegarden? Can something about him be added to this article? -- llywrch 23:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I got redirected to this page from HPMS. HPMS refers form me to the U.S. Highway Performance Monitoring System. Would an article on this system be appropriate for wikipedia? -- June 2006

Move

Needed to Teegarden's Star, correct capitalisation. Rothorpe (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Teegarden's Star be renamed and moved to SO J025300.5+165258.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Teegarden's star → SO J025300.5+165258 – No reliable source uses this name to refer to article subject. IAU policy is specifically aginst using names of this type to refer to extrasolar bodies (e.g. [1]) As such this is a neologism and unsuitable as article title. 87.114.24.122 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The star was only discovered in 2003, so whatever else it is, any label attached to this star is a neologism since it is only 10 years old, so therefore new. Several Google Scholar results use the term "Teegarden's Star" more than for "SO J025300.5+165258" or variant , including ApJ and AAS. Are you saying that neither ApJ nor AAS are reliable sources? bgc shows a preference for "Teegarden's Star" (several hits) over SO... (0 hits); and plain google search [2] [3] also shows an extreme preponderance in favor of the current name. SIMBAD doesn't even use your proposed name, it uses "2MASS J02530084+1652532", which lists "Teegarden's Star" as an alternate name. So, are you also contending that SIMBAD isn't an RS either? Further your linked to page is for the sale of naming of star services, completely unrelated to the naming of this star. I suppose next you'll point out Barnard's Star for renaming? Or Cor Caroli? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 04:32, 7 February 2013 edit 65.92.180.137 (talk) →Requested move ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:35, 7 February 2013 edit undo 65.92.180.137 (talk) →Requested move Next edit →
Line 18:		Line 18:

	[[:Teegarden's star]] → {{no redirect\|SO J025300.5+165258}} – No reliable source uses this name to refer to article subject. IAU policy is specifically aginst using names of this type to refer to extrasolar bodies (e.g. [http://www.iau.org/public/buying_star_names/]) As such this is a neologism and unsuitable as article title. [[Special:Contributions/87.114.24.122\|87.114.24.122]] ([[User talk:87.114.24.122\|talk]]) 03:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)		[[:Teegarden's star]] → {{no redirect\|SO J025300.5+165258}} – No reliable source uses this name to refer to article subject. IAU policy is specifically aginst using names of this type to refer to extrasolar bodies (e.g. [http://www.iau.org/public/buying_star_names/]) As such this is a neologism and unsuitable as article title. [[Special:Contributions/87.114.24.122\|87.114.24.122]] ([[User talk:87.114.24.122\|talk]]) 03:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''' The star was only discovered in 2003, so whatever else it is, any label attached to this star is a ''neologism'' since it is only 10 years old, so therefore new. Several Google Scholar results use the term [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Teegarden%27s+star%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= "Teegarden's Star"] more than for [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=SO-J025300.5%2B165258+OR+SO-025300.5%2B165258+-%22Teegarden%27s+Star%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= "SO J025300.5+165258" or variant] , including [http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/137/1/402 ApJ] and [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.0721G AAS]. Are you saying that neither ApJ nor AAS are reliable sources? bgc shows a preference for [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%22Teegarden's%20star%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&ei=eSoTUZz8FZPa9ATkl4D4Aw "Teegarden's Star"] (several hits) over [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=SO-J025300.5%2B165258%20OR%20SO-025300.5%2B165258%20-%22Teegarden's%20Star%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&ei=5CoTUZTfGYqQ9QTz24HADQ SO...] (0 hits); and plain google search [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&tbo=d&q=SO-J025300.5%2B165258+OR+SO-025300.5%2B165258+-%22Teegarden%27s+Star%22&oq=SO-J025300.5%2B165258+OR+SO-025300.5%2B165258+-%22Teegarden%27s+Star%22&gs_l=serp.3...16492.18051.0.18459.5.5.0.0.0.0.73.335.5.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.serp.cr-JezYOabw] [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&tbo=d&q=%22Teegarden%27s+star%22&oq=%22Teegarden%27s+star%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i10i30.1162.2040.0.2530.2.2.0.0.0.0.78.102.2.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.serp.vP11EVot5QA] also shows an extreme preponderance in favor of the current name. SIMBAD doesn't even use your proposed name, it uses [http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=NAME+Teegarden's+star "2MASS J02530084+1652532"], which lists "Teegarden's Star" as an alternate name. So, are you also contending that SIMBAD isn't an RS either? -- [[Special:Contributions/65.92.180.137\|65.92.180.137]] ([[User talk:65.92.180.137\|talk]]) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)		*'''Oppose''' The star was only discovered in 2003, so whatever else it is, any label attached to this star is a ''neologism'' since it is only 10 years old, so therefore new. Several Google Scholar results use the term [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Teegarden%27s+star%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= "Teegarden's Star"] more than for [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=SO-J025300.5%2B165258+OR+SO-025300.5%2B165258+-%22Teegarden%27s+Star%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= "SO J025300.5+165258" or variant] , including [http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/137/1/402 ApJ] and [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AAS...204.0721G AAS]. Are you saying that neither ApJ nor AAS are reliable sources? bgc shows a preference for [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=%22Teegarden's%20star%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&ei=eSoTUZz8FZPa9ATkl4D4Aw "Teegarden's Star"] (several hits) over [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=SO-J025300.5%2B165258%20OR%20SO-025300.5%2B165258%20-%22Teegarden's%20Star%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&ei=5CoTUZTfGYqQ9QTz24HADQ SO...] (0 hits); and plain google search [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&tbo=d&q=SO-J025300.5%2B165258+OR+SO-025300.5%2B165258+-%22Teegarden%27s+Star%22&oq=SO-J025300.5%2B165258+OR+SO-025300.5%2B165258+-%22Teegarden%27s+Star%22&gs_l=serp.3...16492.18051.0.18459.5.5.0.0.0.0.73.335.5.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.serp.cr-JezYOabw] [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&tbo=d&q=%22Teegarden%27s+star%22&oq=%22Teegarden%27s+star%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i10i30.1162.2040.0.2530.2.2.0.0.0.0.78.102.2.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.serp.vP11EVot5QA] also shows an extreme preponderance in favor of the current name. SIMBAD doesn't even use your proposed name, it uses [http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=NAME+Teegarden's+star "2MASS J02530084+1652532"], which lists "Teegarden's Star" as an alternate name. So, are you also contending that SIMBAD isn't an RS either? Further your linked to page is for the sale of naming of star services, completely unrelated to the naming of this star. I suppose next you'll point out [[Barnard's Star]] for renaming? Or [[Cor Caroli]]? -- [[Special:Contributions/65.92.180.137\|65.92.180.137]] ([[User talk:65.92.180.137\|talk]]) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)