Talk:1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5

1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5 = V442 UMa?

Might this be the SIMBAD profile for this system?

https://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-id?Ident=1SWASP+J093010.78%2B533859.5&NbIdent=1&Radius=2&Radius.unit=arcmin&submit=submit+id

If so, maybe the page title should be amended to "V442 Ursae Majoris"? - Dwight Williams - 5 Oct 2024 172.83.165.60 (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the Simbad page for the visible pair (=4/5 stars). However, Simbad mistakenly assigns the 1SWASP identifier (and a second 1SWASP identifier of a faint star 18" away) to component B alone. I have reworked the starbox to reflect this, link to each component and the pair, and show three sets of identifiers in starbox catalog for the pair and for each component. A is V441 UMa and B is V442 UMa, each an eclipsing binary. Lithopsian (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And having gone to all that effort, the Gaia parallaxes are wildly discrepant, although the component A astrometry at least is very unreliable. The various references in the article pre-date this information and apparently no published papers since have commented on this discrepancy. I'll leave the article as a quintuple system for now. Lithopsian (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2025

It has been proposed in this section that 1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5 be renamed and moved to V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5 → V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris – Should we switch to using the variable star designation instead of the less intelligible 1SWASP coordinate designation that it currently uses? After all, WP:STARNAMES says that variable star names have higher priority over the catalogue coordinate designations. However, I'm not quite sure because the scientific literature more commonly uses "1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5" (and as far as I can tell, has barely used V441/V442 UMa) to refer to the entire quintuple system, so WP:COMMONNAME applies. What do you think? Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 04:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination, can't think how this wi-fi password would be more recognizable than a compact VSD. I believe that a consideration of all criterions, applying common sense when necessary, is better than blindling following only one, so V441/2 Ursae Majoris is a better match to this article. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2025 (UTC) Support TDS 38 per Lithopsian. A valid argument is that V441 and V442 is for the individual components, but we are writing about the entire system, while 1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5 is not viable. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And an additional comment: V1400 Centauri was moved from 1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6 by the very same reasons here, showing that the simple argument of "it is the common name, it should be the article name" is not always universal. This comment given in Talk:V1400 Centauri#Requested move 18 March 2020 is of note: I also believe the current title fails Wikipedia's policy on commonly recognisable article titles, simply because of its long and illegible nature, which makes it highly unlikely to be memorable – let alone recognisable – for any reader. Another case of this is Microsoft Windows, whose proposals to move to Windows were not accepted. Even though someone may copy-and-paste "1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5" when searching for the first time, and see "V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris" instead, the short description, and the photo will guide the reader to the correct page. And in future searchs the reader will naturally use the simpler name. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link given in your link to 'Wikipedia's policy on commonly recognisable article titles' includes on the contrary: 'it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.' Since there is an obvious, most frequently used name, why not use it? Stevinger (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of being more commonly used, it is a more cryptic name to the point of being illegible, which weighs heavily when it comes to balancing the use of WP:COMMONAME versus the rest: Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above.. The guideline was not taking in account the complexity of some designations, a key word here is "generally". 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is what i am telling. It's better to have V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris rather than 1SWASP Jsome long RA.some long DEC. Wikipedia algorithms and other algorithm will use the new name in time. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'generally' refers to the five criteria being met. You are aware that 'V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris' is longer than '1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5'? And it includes the disadvantage, that either V441 Ursae Majoris or V442 Ursae Majoris is a identifier. So to prevent misunderstandings, if the majority prefers this name, it should be 'V441 Ursae Majoris and V442 Ursae Majoris', longer, but less problematic. Or 'V441 Ursae Majoris / V442 Ursae Majoris'? Stevinger (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used. The complexity i am referring is not only the nominal length of the name, but the fact that 1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5 is more complex and harder to read than "V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris", since it has a large number and because the 1SWASP part must be spelled. One can easily understand that "V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris" is referring to "V441 Ursae Majoris and V442 Ursae Majoris", and to avoid repetition we use it. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris is a lot easier to memorize. LobedHomunculus (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: there are other double-star designations available. Possibly the only one that is relatively succinct and relatively widely-known is TDS 38. It would be more manageable than a combination of two variable star designations. Lithopsian (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would be a better title. LobedHomunculus (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Praemonitus. Maybe it'd be easier to navigate to but is is more commonly known as "1SWASP [not even going to attempt the rest]". — ^EF⁵ 18:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Astronomical objects and WikiProject Astronomy have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I get more scholarly finds when searching on "1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5" than for "V441 UMa" or "V442 UMa". Praemonitus (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that's what I've pointed out. Whether WP:COMMONNAME or WP:STARNAMES readability should prevail, I am not sure myself. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 19:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the 1SWASP designation is so big and complex that just the fact of being more common start to become meaningless, and a more human-readable name, even if less common, is more appropriate. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does not feel that complex, if you compare to the coordinates (right ascension and declination) on the main page, you basically have the name, at least it tells you where on the sky the object is. Btw, you also do not have to memorize it. If you type '1SWASP' in the wiki search, actually '1SW' is enough, it is the first suggestion. Stevinger (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
25 characters, numbers, letters and special characters, is certainly complex, and "V441" would also point to here. If two, three more articles created with 1SWASP designations, the argument is gone, as the reader would need to click on them all to find the correct one. 99% of the readers don't even have a idea on what a coordinate mean (or that J093010.78+533859.5 are the object coordinates), much less know what to do with it, they will certainly get no results in Google Maps. After all, telling the object's coordinate is not the role of an article's name, but of the starbox. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I phrased that badly. I meant that the name is human-readable, because it consists of the coordinates, but maybe the concept is not very well known. "V441" already points to 1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5, right now. The problem is if you forgot the precise variable number, then Wikipedia gives you lots of possibilities in several constellations, even a COVID-19 vaccine. Stevinger (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same applies if one forget the name header is 1SWASP. Also, as i mentioned above, if multiple articles on 1SWASP objects are created, finding the correct 1SWASP designations becomes impossible. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you argue, that it might get equally hard to find it if several other 1SWASP objects are created, while it is already hard to find it now, if renamed? This is not a good argument for renaming it. Stevinger (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose, depends a lot what should be achieved. V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris tells you the constellation. 1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5 tellls you Super Wasp was involved and the coordinates. In addition it has the advantage, that any anybody that read somewhere about it can find it easily. And of course, a single identifier is in this case enough. There are well known exceptions of the WP:STARNAMES. Since I am in favor of keeping e.g. 51 Peg b as primary name instead of Dimidium around Helvetios (IAU name for 51 Peg), since it is much more well known, or 2M1207 b instead of TWA 27 b, I am rather in favor of keeping the current name. A problem for this specific object might be, that it has three Simbad pages: 1, 2, 3. Stevinger (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And there are even more exceptions to the common name, e.g. V1400 Centauri instead of 1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is that V1400 Centauri is even mentioned all the way as early as in the title of references (Kenworthy, "ALMA and NACO observations towards the young exoring transit system J1407 (V1400 Cen)"), so seems not as uncommonly used as V441 and V442 UMa. Stevinger (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This system barely has two references about it, so a detailed comparion is impossible (and unfair), and regarding the claim that V1400 Centauri supposdely was mentioned all the way as early as in the title of references, Talk:V1400 Centauri evidence it isn't the common name. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Barely two references'?? The current article already mentions three (Koo, Gazeas, Lohr). 3/3 of these use the 1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5 handle. What do you mean by claim and supposedly, this is the title of the Kenworthy reference. V1400 Cen might have more references, and I gave only one example (Kenworthy) that has V1400 Cen in the title, but all of this does not make a comparison impossible or unfair. You suggested the comparison (at least twice already in this debate). Stevinger (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Bro you only tell me is it better to make the name precise rather than long for future Common People. Is it better to use V441/442 Ursae Majoris rather than using 1SWASPJsome long RA-Some long DEC Coordinates because to show it's SuperWasp Object. That can be done by making the title bold, etc. There is no need for that long name if a short one already exists and is WP:STARNAMES Preferred to use the variable Star Catalog more than SuperWasp and it's coordinates.

I suggest Using V441/442 Ursae Majoris instead of V441 and 442 Ursae Majoris and 1SWASP J140747.93−394542.6. Common People want names that can be easily memorize rather than some difficult coordinate. We can use same thing what we see in many Variable Stars Catalog pages like V1400 Centauri.

I know that for Astronomical people this 1SWASP designations are jackpot but for common peoples, it is a terrible disaster. Like Example why we call Betelgeuse just name it BD+07°1055, etc. You can find the thing i am talking about. While both are same star but different name. This change is as clear as that.

Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah1099, what is a future Common People? — ^EF⁵ 12:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring future Common People as the common people who will see this article in future Abdullah1099 (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that point of view. Just two remarks:

Using V441/442 Ursae Majoris might not be a good idea as 'future Common People' who don't know that it is two names mixed up, have a hard time finding it outside Wikipedia.

Betelgeuse is a nice example, but basically means right hand of Orion (Arabic) so is a good choice. I fully agree it should be used. But once you get away from very old names, barely anyone would e.g. identify Errai, but it is the host star of the first exoplanet candidate that was much later confirmed (1988 vs. 2003), so most people use a different name. Same thing, WP:COMMONNAME vs. WP:STARNAMES. (Betelgeuse is fulfilling both, so might not be the ideal example.) Stevinger (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know bro but this name would gave common people less headache understanding and memorizing. Better solving this problem you guys know better. I think using V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris can be easily understand by the user and is better than memorize that 1SWSAP Designation. Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does a title being "easier to remember" have anything to do with an article title? Just redirect the Majoris titles here. ^EF⁵ 13:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing we are talking about in this. Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but memory doesn't have anything to do with article titles. ^EF⁵ 13:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, For that we are talking about is it better to move to V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris or is it better to remain in 1SWASP designations. That memory is my perspective as a common man. Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what we are discussing at the moment. Please feel free to remember it as V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris. If you type V441 in the Wikipedia search field the first suggestion is 1SWASP J093010.78+533859.5, you don't have to memorize the 1SWASP name. So keeping it has the advantage that it is WP:COMMONNAME and everybody can find it as V441 and V442 Ursae Majoris, too. Stevinger (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not fully sure. Abdullah1099 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]