The lead guideline says that the leads in articles should avoid citation tags because they generally can be proven in the article. Everything that was tagged seemed to be referenced in the article itself, so I do not think these are necessary. --Starstriker7(Talk) 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
- The part on citations in the lead does not say that citations are to be avoided, but should be balanced. The 100th exoplanet claim strikes me as one that is liable to be challenged, so probably should get a citation in the lead. Also, the assertion that the star is primarily known by the HD designation is not repeated in the article so strikes me as needing a citation. Icalanise (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Okay...I've cited the 100th exoplanet claim, but the HD designation assertion...well, I'm not sure how I can prove that. It sorta just is, isn't it?
- Any suggestions? I could simply cite a bunch of articles that refer to it as an HD object, but then one might be cynical and consider me a cherry-picker. --Starstriker7(Talk) 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not entirely convinced we need to explicitly state what the most commonly-used designation is. That assertion is one that could get challenged but as you say is somewhat difficult to prove with a citation. What do you think? Icalanise (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, okay. You got me there. I'll change the info accordingly right now. --Starstriker7(Talk) 02:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Wait...I'm not sure what I'd do with the Nomenclature section, because it's based entirely on that pointer. How do you suggest I change that? I'll remove the info from the lead, but... --Starstriker7(Talk) 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
- Never mind. I found a way to put it based on the HD 40307 article. --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
