Talk:GJ 1245

G 208-44/208-45 or V1581 Cygni?

Wouldn't a better name for this article be the traditional variable designation V1581 Cygni rather than its listing in an obscure catalog? Chasrob (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to GJ 1245. bd2412 T 01:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

G 208-44/208-45 → Gliese 1245 – Almost all binary stars are known by a single name (such as Alpha Centauri, Luhman 16, etc) and Gliese is a much more prominent catalog than the Giclas Catalog. As a bonus, it's much less of a 'phone number' name, which should be avoided at all costs. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• WP:STARNAMES says, "If the star has a traditional name that is more widely used than any other name, this name is to be the article's title (e.g. Vega, Sirius, Aldebaran). If there is no common traditional name, the Bayer designation is to be the article's title (e.g. Alpha Centauri, Delta Capricorni, Upsilon Andromedae). If there is no Bayer designation, then the Flamsteed designation is to be the article's title (e.g 55 Cancri, 51 Pegasi, 61 Cygni). If there is no Bayer or Flamsteed designation, then the Draper catalogue number (HD), variable star designation, or Gliese catalogue number (GJ) should be the article's title based on which one is in wider use (e.g. HD 98800, GJ 3021, Gliese 876, R Coronae Borealis, RR Lyrae, V838 Monocerotis),[1] unless an earlier catalogue number is more widely recognised (e.g. Lalande 21185, not HD 95735). If there are no Bayer, Flamsteed, variable star, Draper, or Gliese designations, then the most widely recognised (other) name is to be the article's title (e.g. GSC 02652-01324, 2M1207), generally a catalogue acronym or abbreviation followed by the catalogue number." That means the title should be changed, but this puts the variable star designation V1581 Cygni as indicated by User:Chasrob in the talk section above on the same level as Gliese 1245. "V1581 Cygni" gets approximately 10 times the Google hits of "Gliese 1245" and twice the Google hits of "GJ 1245". Is there a reason not to move this to V1581 Cygni? Dekimasuよ! 23:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Also, the article used to be at Gliese 1245, but was moved to GJ 1245 with the edit summary "Use GJ instead of Gliese (# >= 1000) as per consensus discussion on naming astronomical objects." I do not see this in WP:NCASTRO, but maybe it is in the talk archives. Dekimasuよ! 23:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Certainly not Gliese 1245. It would be GJ 1245. I suspect your V1581 Cygni searches have been contaminated, probably by the game Elite: Dangerous. Google is a very undiscriminating search tool. Hardly anyone uses the designation V1581 Cygni for the star system. The existing name is clunky; it would need a very good reason to keep and I don't see that reason. The original reason given was that it (or they?) is more commonly used, but that isn't my experience or the finding of a quick search of published papers. GJ 1245 is the most common designation I find and it has the advantage of being a single designation for the whole system being described in the article. Lithopsian (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support GJ 1245 as the most common in Google Books.[1] In Google Books it outpaces other options like "V1581 Cygni", "Gliese 1245", and the current name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and Cúchullain.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Support the form "GJ 1245" per Dekimasu, Lithopsian and Cúchullain.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support GJ 1245 per Cúchullain. Dekimasuよ! 22:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.