Talk:2MASS J10475385+2124234

On 5 August 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2MASS J1047+21. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Shouldn't the page be moved to 2MASS J1217-03?.

Sam-2727 (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2024

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: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J10475385+2124234 → 2MASS J1047+21 – Make shorter (WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE). A number of digits far higher than necessary. New title is more natural, more recognizable, less precise, but much more concise. Almost perfectly meeting WP:CRITERIA. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 08:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Waqar💬 14:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a question of consistency. The Category:2MASS objects shows many other articles that are using the full name, and only three with the shorter form (e.g. 2MASS J0523−1403). Is the end goal to shorten them all? I don't have a preference either way. But I will note that a SIMBAD lookup of '2MASS J1047+21' returns an error. Praemonitus (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recommend it to be this short. The "+21" part there is a full degree in declination, and having it just that way does not express coordinate accuracy, and is not consistent since the RA value goes to minute level.

I would rather have it to be shortened to 2MASS J1048+2124 (rounded up since 53 seconds is close to a full minute) if you really want to, as I have no preference either way. At least this is consistent with most papers noting objects in survey by their coordinate positions, and both having minute accuracy. A minor point I have with Praemonitus's point though is that SIMBAD does not really recognize objects in this string due to its search recognition capability, or even my proposed format of minute accuracy and requires to be down to hundredths-of-second. SkyFlubbler (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.