Talk:Messier 2

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move All. All have been done and double redirects fixed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note: The items that are crossed out have been successfully moved with no double redirects left behind.

• Globular Cluster M2 to Messier 2
• Globular Cluster M4 to Messier 4
• Globular Cluster M9 to Messier 9
• Open Cluster M21 to Messier 21
• Open Cluster M26 to Messier 26
• Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy M32 to Messier 32
• Open Cluster M34 to Messier 34
• Open Cluster M35 to Messier 35
• Open Cluster M36 to Messier 36
• Open Cluster M37 to Messier 37
• Open Cluster M39 to Messier 39
• Open Cluster M41 to Messier 41
• M43 (nebula) to Messier 43
• Open Cluster M46 to Messier 46
• Open Cluster M47 to Messier 47
• Open Cluster M48 to Messier 48
• Open Cluster M50 to Messier 50
• Open Cluster M52 to Messier 52
• Globular Cluster M53 to Messier 53
• Globular Cluster M54 to Messier 54
• Globular Cluster M55 to Messier 55
• Globular Cluster M56 to Messier 56
• Spiral Galaxy M66 to Messier 66
• Open Cluster M67 to Messier 67
• Globular Cluster M68 to Messier 68
• Globular Cluster M69 to Messier 69
• Globular Cluster M70 to Messier 70
• Globular Cluster M72 to Messier 72
• M73 (star group) to Messier 73
• Globular Cluster M75 to Messier 75
• Lenticular Galaxy M84 to Messier 84
• Elliptical Galaxy M87 to Messier 87
• Spiral Galaxy M91 to Messier 91
• Globular Cluster M92 to Messier 92
• Open Cluster M93 to Messier 93
• Spiral Galaxy M100 to Messier 100
• Open Cluster M103 to Messier 103
• Globular Cluster M107 to Messier 107
• Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy M110 to Messier 110
• Most of these go against the typical Wikipedia convention to disambiguate articles by using parentheses after the article name, and discussion on WikiProject Astronomical objects has come to the view that the format should be Messier #. Many of the destination pages are redirects with more than one item in the history. Chaos syndrome 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Strongly support. I would have done the redirecting already.--JyriL ^talk 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Support. The most natural way to handle the title issue. Awolf002 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Glad this is being done as a group, less work! --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Support. Some of the extended names were vague or inaccurate. GeorgeJBendo 15:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kalsermar 17:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Support Clearly the way to go. WilliamKF 00:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Support Makes things much more simple. --Nebular110 16:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Add any additional comments

• Comment! I had no idea there was a poll for this...I think the consensus issue has already been settled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 1#Naming Conventions. I have been moving these slowly but surely for the past several months, and haven't received any complaints. Of course, as mentioned, some of the intended names have edit histories (mostly when the target of a redirect was changed), so an admin will have to take care of those. Ardric47 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I thought the issue had been settled too, but since the majority of these are not moves which can be carried out by non-administrators I decided to force the issue. Of course, thanks to the recent page move, we are now in the somewhat ironic situation that the main page for the discussion of the block move now doesn't need to be moved. This doesn't invalidate the rest of the move requests though. Chaos syndrome 13:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
    • Moved everything up to M50. Will do more later when I have time - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 14:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm beginning to strikethrough the moves that have been completed and have had their double redirects fixed. Ardric47 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
• Comment Messier 60 still seems to be a redirect to an NGC # btw. Could this also be corrected?--Kalsermar 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • A quick Google search comparison suggests that the Messier designation is used more often than the NGC one, so I'd support that. Chaos syndrome 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.