Talk:Struve 1694

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was support for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Sigma 1694 → Struve 1694 — This "Σ" is abbrebiation of Struve, and do not read "sigma". （移動依頼はこれでいいのかな？）--Bay Flam 21:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support it's what Simbad lists (or rather, STF, for Struve) 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support with maybe a redirect from Sigma 1694 just in case... CielProfond (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because Norton's Star Atlas (1973, 16th edition) lists it with sigma. See Interesting Objects, Maps 1 & 2 on page 118. Also Norton uses the sigma letter for several other stars, such as the 21st nearest star Σ 2398 A on page 89, and these double stars on page 118: Σ 1193 Ursae Majoris, Σ 1882 Draconis, Σ 2573 Draconis, Σ 2883 Cephei. -84user (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about later (newer) editions of Norton's? I'm pretty sure most people today would be using an atlas that is less than 36 years old... Besides, you quote the Greek letter Σ and not its name ("sigma") so I wonder if it shouldn't instead be Σ1694, no?! CielProfond (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your 1973 reference does not show it is named "sigma", only that it is named "Σ" The requested move posits that "Σ" represents "Struve", which you have done nothing to disprove. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Washington Double Star catalog references list gives several different discoverer designations for various members of the Struve family, of which STF is one. Are we sure that STF is the only one that gets referred to as "Struve ####", or that the various discoverer designations do not have colliding designations if they are all renamed to "Struve"? Perhaps "STF 1694" would be less ambiguous? Icalanise (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Although both names are valid, I think it makes some sense to use Struve instead of Sigma. This is consistent with other star list/catalogue naming schemes, such as Luyten, Wolf and Gliese, and it avoids confusion with stars (such as sigma orionis) that have a Bayer designation with a sigma. We can still use the Σ and 'sigma' as part of the designation list.—RJH (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Layout

Yeesh, what a fugly article layout. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusal with https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/HD_112028?

This page is identical in some ways with https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/HD_112028

Both Σ 1694 A and HD 112028 are catalogued under HR 4893. Σ 1694 B, however, is catalogued under HR 4892 and HD 112014. Confusingly, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/HD_112028 does not cite Struve 1694 as an alternate designation.

On https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/HD_112028, both components are stated to be at a distance of approx. 600 LY. On https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Struve_1694, Σ 1694 A is stated to be at a distance of approx. 310 LY, whilst Σ 1694 B stated to be at a distance of approx. 200 LY.

Astronomical statistics otherwise match on both pages regarding Σ 1694 A, and the spectral types match for both Σ 1694 A and Σ 1694 B.

Are we looking at the same star here? If so, I propose that the articles be merged and conflicting data be investigated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.188.99 (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are now separate articles for HD 112028 and HD 112014, the two components of this double. I have shortened this article into a set index pointing at those two stars. I have retained some information about the double here. Lithopsian (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Struve 1694. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100810114313/http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/e_research_chinengstarzone_b.htm to http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/Space/Research/StarName/e_research_chinengstarzone_b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]