Talk:HD 20782

message: The table title for the HD 20781 system is wrong. It should say "The HD 20781 system" instead of "The HD 20782 system". I can't for the life of me figure out how to fix the typo. A8875 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to use the "|name=" tag. The planetboxes are for individual stars. This article is doing double duty as a system article.--Zimriel (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo in table title

message: On THAT topic... the fact that this is a star article but is covering another star in its system, is a problem.
I had some related angst with HD 196067 (which has planets) / 196068 (which doesn't as far as we know). A commenter kindly pointed out that they could be bundled into Mu2 Octantis. And he's right; Struve 1341 already follows this standard. So Mu2 Octantis is where I moved all my stuff. If HD 196068 turns out to have planets too, it'll be time to build separate entries for 196067 and 196068. Ditto HD 106515: it'll get separate LTT 4598 and 4599.
Short-term, I fixed (hacked) the "typo" here (and in the systems noted above). What this article needs long-term is a name for the HD 20781 / 20782 system. Then the system data can be moved there, and each star can get its own article which will imply its own planetbox.--Zimriel (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: A star, not a system

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support; makes sense, and see other articles where a pair of stars are referred to by both designations. They exist. StringTheory11 (t • c) 14:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Two years have gone by and apparently no new details have arisen on either of the stars in the pair. The request by victor falk at 00:29, 22 May 2014 seems to me to be to combine the articles on 20781 and 20782 into a single article, with a table for the planets of each, and all the info currently in the two articles; but the rejection of this suggestion says "Consensus seems to be that, instead of moving, HD 20781 and HD 20782 should be created as a new article to cover both this article (HD 20782) and its relative HD 20782". That seems to be calling for precisely what the original request was to do. Whether or not the original was best described as a "move request", the decision was in fact to do exactly what it apparently called for, but this was described as a rejection when in fact it was agreeing with the request, but apparently it completely misstated what had been asked for which was actually what it concluded was wanted! Or is it all so badly explained that I have misunderstood the situation? 
So: what precisely to we mean by a move request? And how do we word one like this, so that it does not get rejected when those considering what to do appear to have agreed with the proposer about what would be best for this twin subject? Although in the last 2 years nobody has done anything about producing the combined article that both the proposer and the rejectors called for?
And before we forget it, can we improve the explanations in the Wikipedia writing manual, and the style, and writing, and change request guidance, so that messes such as this appears to be a classic example of can be avoided in future?  
Iph (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the move request understood before rejection? 

message: Says:
* http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140519215039.htm
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 05:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  They ate terrestrials