Talk:Gliese 758 B

Inaccuracy

Whoever wrote this article seems unaware that the designation is in fact GJ 758 B, not GJ 758 b. It is also telling that the term "brown dwarf" is not mentioned at all in the article... too much enthusiasm for extrasolar planets perhaps? 86.169.213.145 (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. We could move it back between B and b forever and still not come to an agreement. The paper says "B"; the exoplanet encyclopedia says "b" (but lists it as "unconfirmed"); the official press releases call it an "exoplanet candidate"—it's going to be hard to place it in one bin or another without falling into WP:OR as long as there's such uncertainty about the system's age. For now "B" is probably the way to go, but it could change. — Aldaron • T/C 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Exoplanet encyclopaedia uses a php script that is somewhat inflexible when it comes to designations (e.g. B1257+12 planets listed as b,c,d instead of A,B,C). The paper is a more reliable source for this. 86.169.213.145 (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; and moved. — Aldaron • T/C 17:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess its a moot point now, but the vast majority of exoplanets on Wikipedia use the lowercase letter format. The format used in the paper was uppercase, but this naming bucks the trend. I guess at this point, we wait for scientists to get their S*** together and come up with a formal naming standard for exoplanets. We could always rename the page again.HornColumbia (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is (as you see) if we call it "b" someone will say it should be "B" (and if we call it "B", someone else will say it should be "b"). In the face of that, I think we have to follow the references. Also, the large size ranges for B/b and C/c means that they may not technically be exoplanets planets at all, and are thus actually "B" and "C" (and not "b" and "c"). The underlying issue is that astronomers need to come to terms with nomenclature for the upper range of companion size. Here, we just need to follow what they do. — Aldaron • T/C 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

(de-indenting) So long as the identifiers are unique, searchable and verifiable it doesn't particularly matter... the designation system is not there to placate the obsessive-compulsives who want everything in neat tidy boxes. As is said above, it is certainly not determined whether these substellar companions are planets or brown dwarfs (nor in fact is there much consensus on what the distinction between these two terms is), if the latter the multiple stars convention of using upper case letters is more appropriate. The navigation template at the bottom of these articles probably violates NPOV by asserting that the substellar companions of GJ 758 are planets. 86.148.145.35 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "navigation template at the bottom of these articles probably violates NPOV", but from a pure navigational viewpoint, they provide easy access to related pages, and the related pages clarify, "possible exoplanet or brown dwarf". The template can always be updated later when more info is avaiable. We don't want orphan pages either. I think the functional benefits outway the exo/bd issue. 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)HornColumbia (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gliese 758 B. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110809065933/http://www.mpia-hd.mpg.de/Public/Aktuelles/PR/2009/PR091203/PR091203_360p25_h264.m4v to http://www.mpia-hd.mpg.de/Public/Aktuelles/PR/2009/PR091203/PR091203_360p25_h264.m4v

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

This article should be deleted, as all relevant data is already incorporated into the article on Gliese 758.

2603:3015:B06:7900:A827:4250:8EC8:5799 (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Joshua Dery - working on a Medium-strength science fiction novel