Talk:Zeta1 Antliae

Requested move

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 Move per WP:SUPSCRIPT, and per discussion. Given the technical limitations of browsers, the rationale behind WP:SUPSCRIPT appears to apply even more strongly to article titles; when in doubt, we should err in favor of making articles more accessible to more readers, rather than insisting on technical perfection. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Zeta¹ Antliae → Zeta1 Antliae
• Zeta² Antliae → Zeta2 Antliae
• Kappa¹ Apodis → Kappa1 Apodis
• Kappa² Apodis → Kappa2 Apodis
• Early time stamp to please the bot. 15:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Tau¹ Aquarii → Tau1 Aquarii
• Tau² Aquarii → Tau2 Aquarii
• Psi² Aquarii → Psi2 Aquarii
• Psi³ Aquarii → Psi3 Aquarii
• Omega¹ Aquarii → Omega1 Aquarii
• Omega¹ Aquilae → Omega1 Aquilae
• Omega² Aquilae → Omega2 Aquilae
• Epsilon¹ Arae → Epsilon1 Arae
• Epsilon² Arae → Epsilon2 Arae
• Nu¹ Arae → Nu1 Arae
• Nu² Arae → Nu2 Arae
• Rho² Cancri → Rho2 Cancri
• Sigma¹ Cancri → Sigma1 Cancri
• Rho¹ Arietis → Rho1 Arietis
• Rho² Arietis → Rho2 Arietis
• Rho³ Arietis → Rho3 Arietis
• Tau¹ Arietis → Tau1 Arietis
• Tau² Arietis → Tau2 Arietis
• Nu¹ Boötis → Nu1 Boötis
• Nu² Boötis → Nu2 Boötis
• Gamma¹ Caeli → Gamma1 Caeli
• Gamma² Caeli → Gamma2 Caeli
• Mu¹ Cancri → Mu1 Cancri
• Mu² Cancri → Mu2 Cancri
• Omicron¹ Cancri → Omicron1 Cancri
• Omicron² Cancri → Omicron2 Cancri

– The above star articles are named in contradiction to WP:SUPSCRIPT. I attempted to relocate Zeta¹ Antliae and Zeta² Antliae, but was blocked because a redirect already exists. Hence, I'm requesting administrative assistance.
– This issue was discussed at the WikiProject Astronomical objects talk page. There are more such star articles in need of renaming, but the required subst template only allows 30 entries. Hence I'll have to submit the others separately. After the articles are moved, I plan to apply {{DISPLAYTITLE}} templates appropriately and edit the star names inside the articles. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC) RJH (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per the Precedent set by the successful moves at X2: The Threat and Alien 3. I don't see any difference here.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think this is an analogous case as the view in these cases was that X²: The Threat and Alien³ were only stylizations and not the real names of the entities in question. In this case the view, as far as I know, is that the superscripted forms are the correct and real forms of the names. Spacepotato (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The problem with using DISPLAYTITLE in this way is that the mangled, non-superscripted form of the name is still visible to the user in many circumstances, for example, in the title bar, or when he hovers over a link like Gamma¹ Caeli.

If the Mediawiki option $wgRestrictDisplayTitle were set to false, it would be possible to leave the articles where they are, but to use DISPLAYTITLE to display an HTML superscript to the user in the article itself instead of a Unicode superscript. This would deliver a uniformly better user experience as it would display a Unicode superscript when hovering or in the title bar and an HTML superscript elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this appears to be technically impossible as it appears that $wgRestrictDisplayTitle has been set to true. This means that an expression such as {{DISPLAYTITLE:Mu² Cancri}} can only be used on an article named Mu2 Cancri. Therefore, using a Unicode superscript in the article title makes displaying an HTML superscript in the article title impossible.

These issues only affect titles and links. HTML superscripts can be used in the article bodies in any case. Spacepotato (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't be able to apply such a solution to Pi⁴ Orionis because there doesn't seem to be a Unicode equivalent. Possibly we could fiddle around with the CSS settings and make something more presentable, like Pi⁴ Orionis (using <sup style="vertical-align: 0.5em; font-size: 0.6em; font-weight: bold;">). Regards, RJH (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, that doesn't look so good in IE. I guess that won't work after all. RJH (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Unicode does have all 10 possible superscripted digits; here they are:

π⁰ π¹ π² π³ π⁴ π⁵ π⁶ π⁷ π⁸ π⁹

And, for comparison, superscripted digits using HTML:

π⁰ π¹ π² π³ π⁴ π⁵ π⁶ π⁷ π⁸ π⁹

Spacepotato (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, we're back at WP:SUPSCRIPT. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SUPSCRIPT is a guideline for article text, not titles. I agree that HTML superscripts should be used in the article text. However, in the title, using Unicode superscripts can be helpful as it can display a correctly superscripted name in the title bar, URL, and link hover text. Spacepotato (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had a small concern about that, but WP:SUPSCRIPT is pretty emphatic about it. I'm not clear why the principles behind that policy would be strictly applied to articles, then ignored for the article title. Perhaps the issue ought to be brought up on that policy's talk page? Regards, RJH (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SUPSCRIPT and that the Unicode characters cause problems with certain font sets, which do not include the full range of superscripts, and would result in better and consistent search results across more search engines. I'm not sure if MOS:TM applies, since these aren't commercial products/entities, but that seems to recommend we use standard digits instead of unicode superscripts. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I've often seen these designations hyphenated when written out in Latin form, i.e. "Zeta-1 Antliae" rather than "Zeta1 Antliae", though both forms certainly seem to be used. I personally find the hyphenated form clearer and looks more reasonable than jamming a number directly onto the end of the word. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no particular consensus about this at WP:STARNAMES. Currently the non-hyphenated form is used for all Bayer designated objects, so if we switch, that would mean renaming many articles. That should probably be brought up as a discussion point at WP:ASTRO. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. StringTheory¹¹ 03:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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.