Talk:WD J0651+2844

Justification

This binary system is reported as being the second system to provide strong evidence for gravitational waves. It is the first visible light system to do so. I am sorry that I am not a better astronomer, so I do not know the "Starbox" data.Nick Beeson (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get that information? constellation; HR, CCDM, HIP catalogues; HIP , HD catalogue numbers? I can't find any of that. When I look up the HIP and HD numbers, they don't match the coordinates of this star system. When I check the coordinates, they don't seem to fall in the Auriga constellation. what's up with that? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to copy a star article, you should atleast delete all the naming and defining information, instead of keeping all the categories, database links, etc that are not appropriate. HD 30453 is not this star system -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Move?

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: no move. WP:STARNAMES says to use the most widely recognised name, which is much the same as common name. When articles on other notable objects entitled to the J0651 designation are written, then the article can be disambiguated. DrKiernan (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

---

J0651 → SDSS J065133.338+284423.37 –

• The name used in the research papers and press releases and several of the news articles is "SDSS J065133.338+284423.37", where it is pointed out that a nickname is "J0651". However this is just a shorthand for half a coordinate pair (like 56N 38W, and you just call it 56N; so is not accurate, nor all that useful out of context, since many things are found at half a coordinate set. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Surely the current name is WP:COMMONNAME, and not the proposed one? I don't see any other Category:Spectroscopic binaries with such a long name. What's someone more likely to type into the search box to look up this article? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Currently Google finds 11:1 pages J0651:SDSS J065133.33+284423.37 That is saying you can expect 11 people to look for "J0651" for every 1 person who looks for "SDSS J065133.33+284423.3" I think the Wikipedia Common name rule applies. I used that name because it is the one most people will type to find the article. If the decision is taken to change the name be sure to put in two redirects: J0651 and SDSS J0651+2844 Nick Beeson (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "J0651" is half a coordinate set, it could refer to dozens of other things, because it is just that, half a coordinate. Just looking at Google, one of the top results is "LSPM J0651+1843", a completely different star, but it comes up because you searched on half a coordinate set. It's like searching on 38W and expecting everything to refer to just a single place on that meridian. And looking at non-astronomy things, there's the "Genuine Savin 2035DP Drum Picker Finger (J0651)" which occupies many top hits, and is a consumer good. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The name that is most likely to be found in astronomical databases, which is the actual name or "SDSS J0651+2844", a shorter variant. The name the current article is found at is neither, and not accurate, true, or reliable, outside of context that establishes first the actual name. Without that, it is just half a coordinate set, with no reference towards catalogue (the SDSS part) or the other half of the coordinates. It's like saying it's called 49N but you actually mean a point on the BC-Washington border, not the entire Canadian-US border. And since you didn't say it was a border crossing instead of a hill (because the catalogue wasn't indicated) it's not useful. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It's SIMBAD entry (standard astronomical database) is SDSS J065133.33+284423.3 ; there are many possible targets with the single ordinate J0651, in a search just in the region of this star system, [1] there are many many objects with "J0651" as an ordinate. The SDSS and IAU naming recommendation uses both ordinates for disambiguatory needs, since SDSS maps millions of stars. Most of the news articles use the full name. For the arc of the sky represented by J06510 to J06519, SIMBAD lists 1774 objects in the database, so that's just how ambiguous this name is, at minimum. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:STARNAMES. Just because someone has used the first few characters of the coordinates to save on typing does not make it a common name. The correct name is the full SDSS identifier. Incidentally, this article badly needs citations to the original research (currently only on arxiv at [2] ) Modest Genius ^talk 12:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to make technical topics accessible to general readers, not just a reference for scientists. As such, I would place more emphasis on news items distributed to wider audiences, such as the BBC, which says "It is the extreme nature of the pair of white dwarf stars known as J0651...", and never gives any longer, more precise name, and UPI, "Every six minutes the stars in [the system] J0651 eclipse each other as seen from Earth, which makes for an unparalleled and accurate clock some 3,000 light-years away," study lead author J.J. Hermes at the University of Texas at Austin said. Note that Hermes did not say "SDSS J065133 dot 338 plus 284423 dot 37." Science News does give the longer name "The system, called SDSS J065133.338+284423.37 (J0651 for short)", immediately followed by the common name. This is how Wikipedia should handle it. The guideline WP:PRECISION says, Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. The encyclopedia should not be a directory of billions of stars, but should only include stars which are notable because they have special and interesting characteristics. If, of the many stars which could be called J0651, this is the only notable one, then disambiguation is not necessary. The white dwarf binary star system described in the article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for J0651. If there is another notable J0651, then we need to consider how to disambiguate them. By all means, do include the longer name(s) in the article, along with an explanation of what they mean. I think spelling out Sloan Digital Sky Survey once is helpful to those who unfamiliar with "SDSS."

And thanks for the link to the WP:STARNAMES guideline. Seems this one falls down to #5 on the preferences list? The most widely recognised (other) name, which seems to me would be J0651. Hopefully this soon gets a Bayer, Flamsteed, Draper, or Gliese designation, which would solve the problem? – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Approximately one in every 1440 (24*60) astronomical objects could be meant by the name 'J0651'. That's billions of them, and a hell of a lot of disambiguation. This star will never receive any of those designations, because they refer to catalogues which were published decades or centuries ago (as is clearly described in the articles e.g. Henry Draper catalogue). The WD name is a possibility, as it's shorter than the SDSS one, but the source paper uses the SDSS designation (shortened thereafter to J0651). Modest Genius ^talk 13:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, today has been my crash course in star naming, and I've actually been bold enough to edit the WP:STARNAMES guideline. I found the relatively new Category:SDSS objects, which surprisingly only had one or two articles in it before I further populated it. I think a naming convention should be established for these objects. From this, I think we all agree that at a minimum the article should be renamed to SDSS J0651, including the acronym for the catalog that J0651 is in. And, following the de facto convention in Category:SDSS objects, "SDSS Jdddd±dddd", where d is a decimal digit, we have SDSS J0651+2844, which is what is on top of the {{Starbox begin}}. I think carrying the numbers out to 2 or 3 decimal places is too much detail for a commonname title. J0651 should redirect there, because that's what people reading about it in the popular press will search for. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The SDSS contains several hundred objects which could be abbreviated as 'SDSS J0651+2844' (it's difficult to be exact because that covers a larger area of the sky than the maximum query size on the web form). This might well be the only one which is actually notable (so far), but I still think we should use the actual SDSS designation, rather than making up an abbreviation. Modest Genius ^talk 22:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral The title just does not need to look technical, though. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 00:30, 20 September 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.