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 consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
HD 168476 → PV Telescopii – Surely under our guidelines on accessibility, PV Telescopii is alot easier to remember and more accessible than HD 168476. Furthermore, SIMBAD uses that term as do the AAVSO, which suggests these bodies see the name as a preferable and accessible name for layepeople. It is informative - noting the star is (a) a variable and (b) in Telescopium...and it has given its name to a class of variable star - PV Telescopii variable. Name usage in journals doesn't quite translate to general use and I think SIMBAD and AAVSO recognise that....and I think we should too. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC) --Relisted.ArmbrustThe Homunculus 16:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I was just talking about HD 168476 at a dinner party this week. Hilarious story, everyone loved it! Or was that HD 168467? Id the star notable for being one of half a million in an old catalog, or for being the prototype of a variable star class? Lithopsian (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose; while on SIMBAD it may use PV Telescopii for the primary designation, the primary designation on SIMBAD does not reflect the most commonly-used designation; see NW Serpentis for an example. AAVSO also always uses the variable star designation as the primary, even if it's absolutely never used. A look at the SIMBAD refs shows that the HD name is really the only name used for this star, and per WP:COMMONNAME it should stay at this title. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Relisting comment. I'll drop a note at the Astronomy project to try and generate some more comments. Jenks24 (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2014 (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.
So I for whatever reason happened across this RM discussion again, and realized that I had moved the page from the variable star designation to the HD designation earlier on the premise that it would not be controversial. In the RM above, I forgot this fact, and the no consensus close thus kept the article at the HD designation. However, due to the fact that it originally was at the variable star designation, the no consensus close should have moved it back there. Pinging @Casliber: so he is aware of this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)