The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
VB 10 → Gliese 752 — The name Gliese 752 refers to both stars of the binary system, which is discussed in the infobox and the article. Furthermore the VB 10 star is not the primary star of the system, which makes having this article as a discussion of Gliese 752 as a whole under this title seem odd. VB 10 should thus be a redirect to either this article or a section of it. Precedent is already set by, e.g. Luyten 726-8, which contains as its secondary the well known flare star UV Ceti, a designation which is arguably better known than the system designation. Icalanise (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
When I created this article I considered organizing it and placing it under the primary star designation as you suggest. I did not do this for several reasons:
1. There was no existent article for either the binary system or the primary star. The primary star has little intrinsic significance. The designation for the primary star is not consistent in the literature.
2. The secondary star was significant even before the announcement of a planetary system. This star is notable for its discovery, size, location and luminosity.
3. The planetary system discovery announcement and all subsequent articles use the ’’VB 10’’ designation and so this is the name by which the article will be accessed by most readers.
I agree that, in general, articles on binary stars should be named for the primary star. Describing a binary system in an article featuring the secondary star does seem a bit awkward. However, if moved, the article is likely to never to be accessed directly by the primary’s name and the significance of the secondary star will be lost for most readers, as it is for UV Ceti in the Luyten 726-8 article given as a precedent. Aldebaran66 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Move: I agree. The article talks more about the system more than just the star. — NuclearVacuum 20:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, wait! I agree things can be done to improve this article. I have an idea. Please give me a couple of days to pony something up that may be acceptable to everyone. Aldebaran66 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Since Aldebaran66 has created a new article at the destination, this should now be considered a merge proposal into Gliese 752 rather than a move proposal. I have adjusted the templates accordingly. Icalanise (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify whether this is a proposed move/replace or a merge. I'm opposed to the former, but the latter would be acceptable because of the article lengths.—RJH (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, this was originally a move request. Aldebaran66 has now changed the situation significantly by splitting out material into a new article at Gliese 752. Proposal is merge this article with Gliese 752, with the final article ending up at Gliese 752. Definitely not suggesting replacing the content that is now at Gliese 752. Icalanise (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I have attempted to resolve the ambiguity of the original VB 10 article. I have removed most of the material concerning the binary system from the VB 10 article and moved it to a new binary star article at Gliese 752. The more important VB 10 article is now focused on history and properties of VB 10 and its planetary system while the less important Gliese 752 article is primarily focused on the properties of the star binary system. I hope these changes address everyone’s concerns. My opinion is that we leave these articles separated for the reasons given previously. Aldebaran66 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge: I think that these two article should be merged together. As mentioned before, articles like Luyten 726-8 (and now Struve 1341) describe the binary star system as a whole. Since there is little description and information on each star, it is wiser not make two small article and instead make one moderate article. — NuclearVacuum 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge—I think the current organization of the articles is satisfactory. Keep in mind that many readers will probably be primarily interested in the putative planetary system of VB 10. Spacepotato (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess the question is, who does the stubby article at Gliese 752 benefit? As has been noted, there's not much specifically about the primary star. A merged article would give the opportunity to convey what is known, in a more substantial article. Then again, maybe having lots of stubs all over the place is what is wanted. Icalanise (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge: it is not logical having two articles for one star system, unless the article must be split for being large. As regards to everybody wanting to know about VB 10, not Gl 752: there are two options: Gliese 752 redirecting to VB 10 or VB 10 redirecting to Gliese 752. And there are always the opportunity to redirect to a section, either Gliese 752 to VB_10#Gliese_752 or VB 10 to Gliese_752#VB_10... ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge, but keep VB10 article: As Spacepotato points out, nearly every reader that encounters this content will arrive here through the VB 10 b. We should move the content from the VB 10 article to the Gliese 752 article, but keep the VB 10 article as a brief referring page (not a plain redirect): "VB 10 is the most familiar and widely used name for the for the star Gliese 752 B (see main article), and the designation most frequently used for it's planetary companion". — Aldaron • T/C 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
But that isn't a merge, or is it? ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Since there has not been any discussion on the proposed merger for over a month and the original proposer is "retired", this proposal has defaulted to "no merger". The merge proposal banner has been removed. If anyone disagrees, or wishes to resume the discussion, please feel free to restore the merge proposal banner an we will start the discussion over again. Aldebaran66 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Then if VB 10 equals Gliese 752 B, why isn't it clear in the introduction? And VB 10 wasn't simply discovered, as alleged in the article, unless the article on Gliese 752 is in error. If that article is accurate, Van Biesbroeck studied Gliese 752 and discovered a second very faint component, and added Gliese 752 B to his catalog of at least 10 objects as number 10. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 14:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
God bless SIMBAD! here is Van Biesbroeck's catalogue, containing 12 faint stars. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)