Talk:WHL0137-LS

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. Good participation with arguments for both sides, but no consensus at the moment. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

WHL0137-LS → Earendel (star)Earendel (star) – Bold move was reverted, so off we go with the discussion then. A title in natural English, which also happen to be the WP:COMMONNAME (ex. usage NASA; discovery paper, which refers to it as "Earendal" [see the extended data figures at the end, freely available]; mainstream news like Reuters) (whether they are officially so designated by the IAU or not does not really matter, see WP:OFFICIALNAME) should be naturally preferred to an obscure technical designation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Spekkios (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note I wouldn't be opposed to a move to the page without the disambiguator, i.e. Earendel, if it is deemed to not be necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the suggested title move - as noted above - the current article title name seems Best => "WHL0137-LS"^[1] (accepted technical name that may stand the test of time), also known as "Earendel" (provisional nickname that may not stand the test of time) - and adopts the same format as (and/or, is consistent with) the previous farthest star observed, "MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1", also known as "Icarus" - at least, this is my reasoning at the moment - comments by other editors more than welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"may [or may not] stand the test of time" is your own personal WP:CRYSTAL. Currently, the sources are rather unanimous in using the natural [Old] English name. As for "consistency", the other star might also need a move, based on stuff like this and this (and all of the discovery coverage which of course used that name as well). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear - the technical name (ie, "WHL0137-LS") is more likely than not to remain; the provisional nickname (ie, "Earendel") is more likely, in comparison with the technical name, not to remain of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, as readers will never recognize WHL0137-LS, but they will recognize Earendel. WP:NATURAL also weakly prefers Earendel, as I find no articles that use only WHL0137-LS, but some articles that only use Earendel. It is possible that Earendel will fall out of use, but WP:CRYSTAL applies - if it does fall out of use, then we can change the article title then. BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per BilledMammal's reasoning. Realistically, any normal person who would have found out about this star would have remembered its nickname over its official designation. ~Junedude433(talk) 02:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The name "Earendel" [[Earendel (star)|Earendel]] is currently a "WP:Redirect" - and should be more than sufficient to direct viewers to the main "WHL0137-LS" article - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  If redirects were "sufficient", then there wouldn't ever be a reason to move articles unless the name was grossly offensive or inaccurate. Obviously, that's not the case. There's an element of WP:SURPRISE coming from a link that says "Earendel" and ending up on some page titled "WHL0137-LS". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My proposal is: "Earendel (WHL0137-LS)". Grimes2 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I am not going to !vote in this RM because I respect the collegial rationale given prior to its filing. I also respect and understand the rationale supporting the move and trust that the best outcome will ultimately prevail. I would, however, like to note a couple things. Firstly, moving the page to its common name, Earendel, does not mean that the lead's opening sentence can not begin by stating the technical name first. If it is moved, I believe that the opening statement should begin by stating the technical name first and would suggest: "WHL0137-LS, commonly known as Earendel, is ..." in such eventuality. And, Earendel (disambiguation) does not currently list a primary topic. I suspect, in time, that this article will be a strong contender for that role. Nevertheless, "the existing landscape" (current events and no ambiguity from other articles with the same name) suggests that this article, if moved, would not need the parenthetical qualifier and should instead be moved (over the redirect) to Earendel. Because this is true, and, in fact, a very common occurrence: I have usurped the redirect to target this page and facilitate any move that may come about (I reasonably expect it to stand). Should contention arise, I, as reasonably, expect to prevail in formal discussion because it is the proper end by expedient means. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drbogdan. The popular name can always be adopted later, once it has become established. It's too soon IMO.Dondervogel 2 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NCASTRO, in addition to encouraging recognizable and unambiguous article titles, also stresses that the article title should also be easy to link to, and be optimized for general readers over "specialists". Neither editors nor general readers are likely to remember a name like "WHL0137-LS". It is simply an illegible name, and illegibile names should not be article titles, per the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY arguments in the discussion thus far. — Molly Brown (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Wait Reviewer #2 of the Nature article: "[N]aming of astronomical objects is sole IAU authority. Hence any reference to fantasy names "Sunrise Arc" and "Earendel" need to be removed." Grimes2 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: A quick look at the international versions of this article shows that there's no general consensus there either. The French, Portuguese, Russian and Arabian articles use the code; the German, Spanish and Hebrew versions use the name; and the Persian page uses both. Herr Hartmann (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What other language versions do is none of our concern. A sampling of actually reliable sources is provided in the nomination, You're free to look for more, but they'll likely give you the same result. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion is not about reliable sources at all. The reliable sources all give more or less the same information: WHL0137-LS is the star's official designation and Earendel is a name chosen by the discoverers which may or may not be permanently applied later on. This discussion is about policies, and the attempt to favor one piece of information over another. Herr Hartmann (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  This discussion is actually about reliable sources and not about what other Wikipedias (which are not reliable source, and which may have different policies from the English Wikipedia) do. WP:COMMONNAME is rather clear that [English] Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; 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. "in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" - such as those I've listed, and the many more you can find. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wait I'm not sure about the merits of the move per se but the star is newly discovered and there's no real urgency to move the page location. Let's come back in a few weeks or a month. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per BilledMammal's and Junedude433's reasoning. Most people don't and won't know the stars official designation, so they'll use its nickname. That's the case for me, at least. Washing Machine (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support for reasons given by BilledMammal and Molly Brown. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. WP:NCASTRO and per Molly Brown and BilledMammal. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Use both. Either option has obvious advantages and obvious drawbacks. WHL0137-LS is the official designation, but it is also an unnatural construct and -as noted earlier- "a mouthful". Earendel is currently "only" a nickname, but it is also the term most likely to be searched for. Making the new Title a combination of both seems to solve most of these problems. Grimes2's earlier suggestion of "Earendel (WHL0137-LS)" is one good option. My personal preference would be "WHL0137-LS (Earendel)" Herr Hartmann (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and wait - once the name would be official, page can be moved. Right now it's just too soon to do anything. Artem.G (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and wait - per Artem.G. Imagine IAU sets a different name, we would have to move again. The redirect is ok for now. Erkcan (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Neither of you has bothered to read the quotes given in the discussion so far or the linked pages (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME), have you? As for IAU setting a different name, that is still very much WP:CRYSTAL, like the proposition that the name given by the researchers is going to be forgotten in favour of some unremarkable technical designator. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    • The only crystal ball gazing going on here is by those guessing that the popular name will stick. We don't know yet and that is the whole point of those advocating patience. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
      • No, the only crystal ball gazing is those claiming that the popular name will disappear out of nowhere. Reliable sources (which we are supposed to follow, not ignore) all include it, sometimes even in the headline (a quick google search will show how overwhelming the common usage is - "earendal star -tolkien" (to exclude mentions of Tolkien's work, even though that shouldn't be necessary given the spelling is actually different) gives over 1 million hits, "WHL0137-LS" gives me less than 10,000). Whether that usage might possibly change, or whether it is not official (again, go read the linked policy page) is none of our concern at this time. We need to follow the reliable sources, and those, from the discovery paper down to the archetypical Littleton Gazette, all mention the "unofficial" name; which also happens to better fit the overall title criteria (including being natural English, and being recognisable and precise - now, the "official" designation might be precise and unambiguous, but it certainly isn't natural English, and to most if not nearly all of our readers, it will be unrecognisable gibberish). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Use of the name in headlines is irrelevant WP:HEADLINES. And as Lithopsian points out below, all current news-articles are based on the same press-release, so the sheer number of them does not increase their reliability. Herr Hartmann (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Not only the headlines but also the body of the sources use it, so your argument is irrelevant on top of already being unhelpful (the use of the name in headlines demonstrates it is a common name and that readers would likely search for it using that, instead of some obscure non-descript technical designation). all are based on the same press-release has no bearing on the fact that most readers will know it by that name, even if that comment was an accurate summary. But given that this is a rather uncharitable report (are you going to say the Nature paper is based on the NASA release? Have you even read all the difference sources - they are all substantially different that they're clearly not just a copy of the same press release published in multiple places: take a look at and then at (which has plenty of unique content not reported in the NASA release) or the Reuters piece (which includes content quoted form the author which does not appear in either of the previous ones). In fact, "rather uncharitable" is a rather generous description of the claim that these are "all the same press release". Upon closer inspection, that claim is, in fact, outright false. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

            Dear RandomCanadian, you were partially correct that I had not read the linked WP:*, though I had gone through the discussion. Yet, your negative way of saying things ("neither of you has bothered to read"), insinuating people that you don't know, does not really help your case. I have been on wikipedia for over 18 years, and as the common sense rules gradually got codified, some people started to forget the fundamental rule: WP:AFG. Let's chill. In the grand scheme of things, at such a wonderful place like wikipedia, amongst people who care about sharing and building something together, it really does not matter whether the article's name is this or that, given that there is already a redirect set. Having read all the linked WP:* after your warning, I still disagree with your interpretation of the rules, and don't believe that the renaming of the article at this time is meaningful, but I also would not mind if the article is moved the way you advocate. I respect my fellow wikipedians. Erkcan (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    • "Neither of you has bothered to read..." Not sure what the point of this comment was. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Using alphanumeric designation isn't ideal, but using an unofficial and likely fleeting proper name is even less ideal. We already have a redirect Earendel (star) and a mention in the relevant dab page, that seems sufficient for the many people who will be coming here searching by the name. This discussion arises repeatedly for stars and other astronomical objects; people get very excited for a few days, then most of the time the name slips out of use, while the designation is "for life". If not, then there is nothing to stop us renaming the article next month or next year. Right now we have a single primary source and hundreds of copies of a press release on different websites; just one other independent source would be a better starting point for this discussion. Something from the IAU nomenclature committee would be even better, but it isn't really the sort of object they've focused on so far. Lithopsian (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support as per BilledMammal. Tisnec (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Assuming the the statement "I find no articles that use only WHL0137-LS, but some articles that only use Earendel" is true, sounds like that is the better name, and the ones that more readers will be searching on and think of as the name of the entity. We are a popular encyclopedia rather than a technical one -- we include lots of highly technical info, but mostly pitched to our readership which is mostly non-specialist. Anyway "Earendel" sticks in the reader's mind because it is more poetic, and while "WHL0137-LS" is more scientific, it doesn't say anywhere that science is better than poetry. We ourselves are a literary publication after all. Herostratus (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Just for the avoidance of doubt, here is such a source. And another (which uses the technical designation for the cluster causing the gravitational lensing, but not for the star). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: A few places with two names have a slash separating the two names. Examples would include Aoraki / Mt Cook and Milford Sound / Piopiotahi. Although using the slash to separate the two names is an option, I would prefer using brackets for something like WHL0137-LS (Earendel) instead. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW - for some reason, the ending, ")", seems to be left out/dropped, when copy-pasting the Wikipedia link of such article titles to EMail programs, FaceBook and other programs in my experiences over the years - so, the "WHL0137-LS / Earendel" title name may be better than "WHL0137-LS (Earendel)", if such title names are seriously considered imo - nonetheless - as before, I prefer, for reasons noted in my comments above, the current original article title (ie, "WHL0137-LS") instead of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and wait. New astronomical discoveries get a flurry of press coverage and then most people forget about them. Names used in press releases don't necessarily stick, and the long term significance of this star is uncertain (who is going to care about it when an even more distant star is discovered?). We didn't move the most distant object that has had a space probe visit it to the name used in a press release (Talk:486958_Arrokoth/Archive_1#Requested_move_of_article_to_different_name_(request_as_of_3_January_2019). After cycling through several nicknames for a newly discovered feature on Pluto, Wikipedia fairly quickly settled on the official name once it was proposed (Talk:Tombaugh_Regio#Requested_move_16_July_2015). Plantdrew (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "We didn't move the other ones, so this one shouldn't be moved" is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. COMMONNAME is evidently something that can change over time. I'll note that of the recent coverage which mentioned the previous record holder, there were clear examples of using "Icarus" and not whatever the unremarkable string of letters and numbers it was. In this case there are not "several nicknames", there is one. Dismissing the name as being "used in press releases" isn't a good argument either. It was used in plenty of non-press-release stuff (such as already given above), and even is still being used in slightly more recent writings (ex. ). Currently, the commonly-recognisable name is "Earendel", not WHL[whatever]. If that changes later, there's nothing preventing a new move at that point. WP:OFFICIALNAME explicitly tells that simply because something is (or isn't) the official name does not make it the proper title for an article. It's TNT, not 2-Methyl-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (even though the latter is the preferred, "official" name). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: No consensus seems to have been reached, with several people supporting, opposing and also saying that we should wait. If in the end no consensus is reached, will the title of the article stay the name? Or will this discussion keep going until we get a consensus? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW - Seems "WP:THREEOUTCOMES" may be helpful - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Pretty much as stated by the others here; I think this is the same issue with somebody naming the M87 black hole as "Powehi" despite not reaching to a consensus with the wider astronomical community. As it says, even with the use of a real name, it is better to stick with the technical one. I also oppose the notion that we are a just a mere literary publication that follows what the readers want - we are after formality. It will die down as long as most astronomers don't recognize it as such; public interest in the star also died down by this point and it would no longer be a smart move to use the popularity card as an argument to use "Earendel." SkyFlubbler (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)