Talk:Stars named after people

message: I have tried to remove some of the "astronomer bias" out of this article. The fact remains that commercial star naming companies disclaim association with the scientific community and inform consumers that star naming is a novelty gift. Informed consumers make the purchase anyway. This is a controversial subject where only the astronomers view is being provided. I have tried to temper the astronomers bias out of this controversy. My edits should stand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennconti (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your talk page indicates a likely conflict of interest in your edits. --Killing Vector (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, this is beginning to get silly. An unscientific internet poll is not a reliable source. --Killing Vector (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

text: How else would all these star naming companies exist? You are either being disingenuous in denying that there is substantial consumer demand or you are being patronizing as concerns the star buying consumer. They are informed, there's lots of them, they are not stupid and they don't care what astronomer's think. However you just want to keep promulgating the lie that they are just stupid victims. How could they possibly want to name a star when the all knowing astronomer has told them they can't? Well they still do. Get over it. Am Invoking WP:IAR Glennconti (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative Point of View

message: This is in :Category:stars and :Category:Lists of stars.  An editor removed :Category:stars and I have restored it. Usually an article should not be in a category and one of its sub categories but I think this is a time to bend the rule (as explicitely allowed in Wikipedia:Categorization) because:
:1. if you are going to eliminate one, it should be :Category:Lists of stars but the subject matter is relevant to people looking up Lists of stars who might not think to look for this article.
:2. three categories in total is not a stupidly large number of categories which is the rationale behind the usual rule.
:3. the purpose of categorisation according to Wikipedia:Categorization is to "help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called."
I shall now get on with some work. Man with two legs 09:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorisation

message: This name does not appear anywhere except in one science fiction story so this entry has been removed from here. References to this name were added in Lalande 21185 in fiction, Lalande 21185, and in George G. Gatewood. Aldebaran66 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gatewood's star

message: This list style article has had a Refimprove banner since February, 2009. All of the entries listed are linked to notable articles with extensive citations and references. I am removing this banner unless someone can say specifically what needs to be done to satisfy this purported condition. Aldebaran66 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations banner

message: This section reports "Unknown to Grissom, these stars already had traditional names".... It seems somewhat odd to say that the stars' traditional names were unknown to Grissom, given that the covert names were not applied until after his death in the Apollo 1 fire. I wonder if something else was intended here.... PurpleChez (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covertly named stars 

message: See this article: 2MASS J18082002−5104378. This star seems to be known as Reese's star. Who or what is Reese? DannyCaes (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reese's star?