Talk:Kepler-429
Add topicLatest comment: 3 years ago by Extorc in topic Requested move 11 May 2023
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Requested move 11 May 2023
[edit]- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 15:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
KIC 10001893 → Kepler-429 – WP:STARNAMES provides no clear guidance here, but seems to favor names that are easily human-readable. All other Kepler planetary host stars seem to follow this convention. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. ExtorcDev (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Tricky. Kepler-429 is a much more appealing name, but it runs into several problems. First, hardly anyone outside Wikipedia ever uses it, and none of the sources in the article except Simbad. Second, it implies confirmed planets, and while the planets were confirmed enough for the name to have been assigned, they have since been shown to be doubtful at best. I have a better solution: delete the article. Notability is borderline even with three planets, and not notable at all without them. Lithopsian (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support, the nomination's wording, "easily human-readable", sums it up. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.