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?

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)
  • 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 naming recommendation uses both ordinates for disambiguatory needs, since SDSS maps millions of stars. Most of the news articles use the full name. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)