Talk:Gamma Crucis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Astronomy because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPAstronomy}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPAstronomy}} template, removing {{WPAstronomy}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Gamma Crucis → Gacrux – {it's the propor name — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 02:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

[edit] Survey

  • Support: it's the propor name of the star. It's the only star with this name, and it's always used to identify this star an is a popular name (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], & [7]). And F.Y.I., the artical still says it's called Gacrux
    — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 02:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a name, it's an abbreviation. 132.205.45.110 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: for all but the brightest stars (Arcturus, Vega, Regulus, etc) and a few other notable stars (Polaris, Algol, Mira) it is more common in English to use the Bayer designation for the star (other languages may do this differently, but that's what is generally used in English). For instance, when Delta Scorpii had a flareup in recent years, the Sky and Telescope (popular amateur astronomy magazine) article on it called it Delta Scorpii, not "Dschubba" [8] [9]. Apart from the fact that the traditional names are not the most common names, there a number of problems with traditional names:
    • Often the spelling is not settled: there are numerous minor spelling variants (Almak == Almach == Alamach; Alrai == Errai; and dozens and dozens of other examples)
    • Some stars have more than one entirely different traditional name (eg, Gemma == Alphecca, Alkaid == Benetnasch, Regor == Suhail, Phecda = Phad, etc.)
    • For some stars, it is not clear exactly which star in the constellation has the given traditional name, eg Suhail in Vela could be Gamma or Lambda
    • For some stars, stars in entirely different constellations can have the same traditional name (eg, Gienah in Corvus and Gienah in Cygnus)
  • For the above reasons, using traditional names as article titles (except for first-magnitude stars and a few other exceptional cases) is very problematic. I even came across a number of cases where duplicate articles had been created by different users at different traditional names (eg, Regor and Suhail. To resolve all these problems it is far better to use the Bayer designation, which is also the most commonly-used name in most cases. -- Curps 02:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - Gacrux is an abbreviated version of Gamma Crucis. 132.205.45.110 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Curps. Gene Nygaard 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.