Talk:NGC 2516

Bogus name is not commonly used...

Actually, the source of this is "Imaging the Southern Sky : An Amateur Astronomer’s Guide" By Stephen Chadwick Ian Cooper" on pg.70 (2012) [1]. This is not the common name of the cluster and has not been used commonly by anyone. It is among the fictions generated by these authors, which are causing great problems with usual naming procedures. All these names are bogus. Including 20 others. As such, they should be removed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

These names are clearly being used, as the sources indicate. I've also seen this cluster called "the Southern Beehive" or "the Running Man Cluster". They may not be universal, but common name typically aren't universal. In any event, they have nothing to do with "the usual naming procedures". They are nonetheless not "bogus" or "fictitious", and you should stop characterizing them by such terms, as that represents only your personal POV. I grant that there are fictitious names floating around -- particularly for stars (there are many in WikiSky), but when a name reaches a book published by a reputable publisher, it has achieved some credibility. A book published by Springer is, after all, regarded as a reliable source. -- Elphion (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the name was made up in this book (confirmed by the authors even). This applies to the "the Southern Beehive" or "the Running Man Cluster." If it appear in SIMBAD, it should accepted as fact. The word "commonly used" is key here, not based on creating names for personal gain or notoriety. "The Diamond cluster" was removed from SIMBAD, when it was found to be associated with a company selling diamonds (as was the alleged "Pearl Cluster." Common usage you would expect to be used for+25 or 50 years. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that SIMBAD is a good source, but there are, of course, other sources. None amounts to an Académie française for common names. I agree that a book introducing a name is not prima facie evidence for the name's currency. Stephen O'Meara's books, for example, routinely introduce his own names, many of which have not caught on. But there is no set time period for common usage: a name can go viral practically overnight. A simple Google search indicates that "the Southern Beehive" is fairly current for this cluster; it's harder to make a similar case for "the Sprinter", though "the Running Man Cluster" does appear in the NGC Project. More references would help. But characterizing a name as bogus or fictitious or fraudulent is not particularly helpful; what matters is whether the name (however coined) has currency. -- Elphion (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

To quote the source too; "In many cases, descriptive names have been provided for the objects in this book, making it easier to identify what you and others have imaged. Many of these names have been in use for centuries; John Herschel, for example, named the Keyhole Nebula in the nineteenth century due to the similarity of its visual appearance to a recognized object." This implies they just made many of these names up. The problem with all these names is that they have been placed in places like WIkipedia, then if they are unedited the spread as if they wee common names. The worst example was, NGC 3766, which was posted on Wikipedia as "The Pearl Cluster" on 23rd March 2006, only to find it was linked to someone selling jewellery on-line. (Do a search, and you find it has been adopted as you say. Is this legitimate if someone is using this for fame or notoriety by pretending it is in common usage?

Both the names "the Southern Beehive" and "the Running Man Cluster" (the latter seemingly comes for the same source as "The Sprinter" name BTW.)

(I know Wikipedia has a policy on this, but I searched and could not find it.) I do appreciate your comments though. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I found this, which confirms the name has been made up here. "In a few cases, where no name seems to be in use, we have taken the liberty of suggesting our own name." This is enough to remove this from these two articles. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(1) It does not matter who coined the name or for what reason; if that's how it's known, it's reasonable to report that. (2) The quote you cite does not imply that the authors themselves coined even most of the names, let alone this one. They admit to coining "a few" of them. It's not clear whether this is such a one. If the authors say that they have coined a name, I'll believe them. Otherwise, you need more evidence. (3) As I said above, it's clear that "the Southern Beehive" is often used to refer to NGC 2516, whether or not it's due to Chadwick and Cooper. (4) We've discussed the Pearl Cluster before; you say the coiner had some connection to a jewelry business, and that this led him to coin that name (contrary to his own expressed intent). I asked for evidence; but I have not seen the evidence. In the long run, it wouldn't matter; if the name had become current, even through being posted on WP, then it would be a current name. If something on WP changes the culture, the culture has changed. It is not our job to change it back. -- Elphion (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So from your logic, if I post a name, say on my website, I can then claim this as a common name for this object too? If appears elsewhere, then according to you it becomes legitimate. Verification is based on actual common usage. "Current name" means what? Most names in astronomy are adopted after either usage over many years or confirmed by, say, the IAU. Do you know what confusion naming things in this way you suggest. All it really creates is more confusion. Your arguments make little to no sense. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You're free to post as many common names as you wish. That doesn't guarantee that others will use them. If enough people use one, then, yes, it becomes a current name for that object. Common names are used, not officially adopted. I'm not aware that the IAU has any policy regarding common names for deep sky objects, as opposed to catalog names: their Naming page mentions only catalog names for deep sky objects. I doubt they're in the business of blessing common names for these. Discussing common names on WP is a good way to help resolve any confusion among multiple names. Ignoring them only perpetuates confusion. -- Elphion (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. It shows a significant flaw in editing of many Wikipedia article. In the wider literature, NGC 2516 is the name of the cluster, which is overwhelming evident in multiple sources. "Naming page mentions only catalog names for deep sky objects.", then why are you not sticking to it? As towards the IAU, fear not, because this position is likely about to change. The grief these individuals are causing is damaging on many levels. The real Achilles heel of Wikipedians is the buffering of individuals who know or desire to exploit article for their own advantages. I.e. Just selling a book. WP:GF is great, but time and again, some see it as just another opportunity. After reading the book, absolutely no explanation is given to why they think it should be called this or that, except on some fanciful whim or a manifestation of ego. Morally it is unacceptable manipulation of others, removing any semblance of usefulness to anyone else. Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Source for the Mass value?

The cluster's mass is stated to be 10⁵-10⁶, but no source is given. Can this be added please? Cheers. Gaba ^(talk) 00:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)