Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d

This is a Good Article

After review, I've determined that this article meets the qualifications for GA status. It is well written, well referenced, and comprehensive. I'm "Mass Passing" this article along with 9 others. The entire list is below. If new developments arise that would effect the references or comprehensiveness of this article, it may affect the others as well.

• 55 Cancri b
• 55 Cancri c
• 55 Cancri d
• 55 Cancri e
• 16 Cygni
• 16 Cygni Bb
• Upsilon Andromedae
• Upsilon Andromedae b
• Upsilon Andromedae c
• Upsilon Andromedae d

Keep up the good work. These articles are ideal "good articles". They can't be FA, because there is no way for them to get long enough, but they are as comprehensive and complete as possible, and represent a good effort on the part of the editors. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about my rationale. Phidauex 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation 8

It says a Mars size Moon is approx the upper limit for a Jupiter mass planet, this planet is near 4 times jupiter mass, is citation 8 and its corresponding sentence really applicable? -- Nbound 12:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it also states that within the regime of the solar system, the mass fraction of the satellites over the range of gas giants is pretty similar, so it may also apply to extrasolar planets of more than a Jupiter mass. If the sentence stated explicitly that large moons would definitely not form, then I'd agree. However, in the context of a discussion about habitable moons I think the reference is useful. Maybe it might be good to expand the point a bit (though not so much that we swamp the section!), I will agree the sentence as it stands just chucks the reference in there in a rather unexplained way. Chaos syndrome 19:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually removed this claim; the reference is undobutably interesting, but it doesnt seem to have any relevance to this article. As you say, the mass FRACTION of the satellite over the range of gas giants is pretty similar, i.e. that means the reference is clear in stating its in proportion to the mass of the primary planet. But I removed it because the reference states "suggest that similar processes could limit the largest moons of extrasolar Jupiter-mass planets to Moon-to-Mars size." Note it says Jupiter-mass. The citation given here says simply omits the Jupiter-mass part. With a 4 times as massive a planet as Jupiter, you get something like half-an-earth mass moon this way (scaling mars-size; this is similar to ratio of the mass of titan and saturn). it states its ~10^4, clearly with quite a variance (Moon - Mars is an order of magnitude difference). With 4*300/10^4= 0.12 (litle over Mars size) as average, and given the order of magnitude variation implied, thats 0.6-0.024. I dont wish to be rude, but you do understand the concept of fraction, right? Its hard to see this from the sentence "the mass fraction of the satellites over the range of gas giants is pretty similar, so it may also apply to extrasolar planets of more than a Jupiter mass." and the conclusions you seem to draw from it.

More importantly this reference http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v385/n6613/abs/385234a0.html says little over Mars-size (more precisely, 0.12 of earth mass) is sufficient anyways, so theres little point in discussing the size of the moons in this section at all. --89.172.84.10 11:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If you didn't mean to be rude, you could have dropped (or at least rephrased) your comment, which was completely unnecessary to your argument. Evidently that was not your aim, so don't increase the insult by pretending otherwise.

Maybe I was being unclear about my reasons for including that statement in the article: my general feeling is that the possibility of formation of habitably-large moons around jovian or superjovian planets is unknown at the current time (since our total sample size of exomoons is zero, and the total sample size of moons of Mars-mass or above in our solar system is also zero), and there are mechanisms which suggest upper limits on moon masses through certain mechanisms (moon migration and eventual accretion onto the parent planet). Whether the numerical relationship between planet and satellite system found for jovian-mass planets holds in the superjovian regime, the paper doesn't indicate. Note also that the jovian system, while higher mass than the Saturnian one, has the mass distributed among multiple satellites, so even if the satellite system of a superjovian has Mars mass, it might be distributed between many Moon-sized objects. I was just attempting to point out that habitable moon formation is by no means a proven possibility. Chaos syndrome 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mass in the infobox

Why are we using an RV minimum mass (3.75 Jupiter masses) as opposed to the astrometrically-derived true mass (10.25 Jupiter masses)? 46.126.76.193 (talk) 07:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2015

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

No consensus to move. There is at this time a clear absence of consensus in favor of the proposed moves, and the current naming scheme is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)#Extrasolar planets. bd2412 T 17:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Upsilon Andromedae d → Majriti (planet)
• Upsilon Andromedae b → Saffar (planet)
• Upsilon Andromedae c → Samh
• Xi Aquilae b → Fortitudo
• 14 Andromedae b → Spe
• 18 Delphini b → Arion (planet)
• 42 Draconis b → Orbitar
• 47 Ursae Majoris b → Taphao Thong
• 47 Ursae Majoris c → Taphao Kaew
• 51 Pegasi b → Dimidium
• 55 Cancri b → Galileo (planet)
• 55 Cancri c → Brahe (planet)
• 55 Cancri d → Lippershey (planet)
• 55 Cancri e → Janssen (planet)
• 55 Cancri f → Harriot (planet)
• Epsilon Tauri b → Amateru
• Iota Draconis b → Hypatia (planet)
• Epsilon Eridani b → Ægir (planet)
• Gamma Cephei Ab → Tadmor (planet)
• Fomalhaut b → Dagon (planet)
• HD 104985 b → Meztli (planet)
• HD 149026 b → Smertrios (planet)
• 41 Lyncis b → Arkas (planet)
• Mu Arae b → Quijote (planet)
• Mu Arae c → Dulcinea (planet)
• Mu Arae d → Rocinante (planet)
• Mu Arae e → Sancho (planet)
• Pollux b → Thestias
• PSR B1257+12 A → Draugr (planet)
• PSR B1257+12 B → Poltergeist (planet)
• PSR B1257+12 C → Phobetor (planet)

– The International Astronomical Union recently announced official names for 31 exoplanets (http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1514/). Wikipedia convention is that articles on astronomical objects are renamed if said objects have been officially named by the IAU, even if the new names have not yet entered widespread use. (See, for example, Tombaugh Regio, Kerberos (moon), and 4942 Munroe for past examples of this). This situation is slightly different to the aforementioned ones in that both the original systematic names and the new English names are equally official; however, in such situations of multiple official names, it is generally preferable to use the English name in favor of the technical name. Thus I believe that all articles on exoplanets which have been officially named by the IAU should be moved. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 02:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Per Chessrat, and I would also add that none of the original names were ever in common usage in the non-scientific world anyways. I would also suggest that the original systematic designation should be given in parentheses at the very beginning of the article after the move (as with 4942 Munroe). A2soup (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#New_IAU_Star_and_Exoplanet_names. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, that's awkward. That discussion was posted about ten minutes after this move request, so whoever posted it probably didn't notice that there was already a discussion in place over here. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:PLANETNAMES. The consensus needs to change first. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:PLANETNAMES isn't really appropriate here, because it was written before the IAU officially named planets. It supports using systematic names, but only because of the rationale that all other names were unofficial. This is clearly no longer the case. No existing policy clearly covers the case of exoplanets with official names. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. This is Wikipedia so the article naming consensus is entirely appropriate for this discussion. The new IAU names are not yet widely used and may never be widely used, so they aren't appropriate for the article names per WP:COMMONNAME. It is not yet time to consider this move. I'd recommend waiting a decade and see if they come into widespread use in the media and scientific papers. Praemonitus (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I was saying that it's inappropriate to cite the consensus of WP:PLANETNAMES as an argument. That particular policy states that "Since the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that unofficial nicknames (e.g. Bellerophon and Osiris) are not the officially recognized names, extrasolar planet articles should not use such names." Clearly this is not relevant here. On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable to use WP:COMMONNAME as an argument against moving the article (though I would disagree with that argument). Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 21:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
        • In that case I should have been more specific: I was referring in particular to the first paragraph of WP:PLANETNAMES. The third paragraph is obviously irrelevant. Praemonitus (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose IAU Can do whatever they want. These are just "screen names" if you are familiar with computing (Just a simple name for the user but not necessarily the actual name). In scientific papers I would still expect the planet designation. Plus so many things the IAU made "official" but is still disregarded by major space agencies and organizations (ex. All objects over 13 MJ are Brown dwarfs is offical from IAU but is not universally accepted). Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note From WP:PLANETNAMES: "Since the International Astronomical Union (IAU) states that unofficial nicknames (e.g. Bellerophon and Osiris) are not the officially recognized names, extrasolar planet articles should not use such names. These names are only to be mentioned in the article." Therefore, you will need to modify WP:PLANETNAMES to do these moves, in which I will also take opposition to. Davidbuddy9 Talk  04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically, I'm not sure these can be considered "unofficial". Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I would support a redraft of WP:PLANETNAMES, seeing as the convention for the naming of planets has just changed. --ERAGON (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest raising that as a discussion topic at WT:ASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Stick with the common names. Adopting these would cause confusion. Jonathunder (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "Spe" clearly it should remain as it is , which is not being used for the planet -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Thestias" this should not become the planet, if anything, it would become a disambiguation page, the current usage is not for the planet -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose "Amateru" which should redirect to List of Japanese deities or Amaterasu instead, since the usage there is what most people will probably want. Or turn it into a disambiguation page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment I think "Samh" should redirect to Al-Samh ibn Malik al-Khawlani instead -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment "Fortitudo" is currently NOT about the planet at all, but leads elsewhere -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
          • Comment I think that "Dimidium" should redirect to Teetotum -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
            • Oppose "Ægir" if we are going to do that, then "Aegir" should be the form used instead. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    • NOTE Thestias is now a dab page, if this is moved, then the dab page should move to Thestias (disambiguation) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Artist's impression

@Dren5144: I see that you restored the artist's impression that I removed, so I feel that I should explain why I removed it. At the outset, the image is not from a reliable source, making it in violation of WP:ASTROART. I don't want to just rely on guidelines, however, so will also point out that the image provides essentially no information about Upsilon Andromedae d, while having lots of potential to mislead readers. A big issue is that it depicts a watery, cloud-covered world. Upsilon Andromedae d, however, is likely to be a gas giant. Reading the caption, I see that the watery world pictured is, in fact, a moon of Upsilon Andromedae d, and the planet is in the background. First, the planet should be the most prominent feature of the lead image in its own article (I was confused and thought for a while that the thing is the foreground was the planet). Second, this planet is not known or even suspected to have any moons, much less Earth-like ones. Third, even ignoring the moon(s), there is no reason to believe this planet is stripey or purple or white. In conclusion, this image depicts no actual facts besides the sphericity of Upsilon Andromedae d, but depicts many things that are not known to be facts and are likely inaccurate. This is not a responsible, encyclopedic way to use an artist's impression. Per all of this, I am removing the image again. Feel free to re-revert, but please give your reasoning here if you do. A2soup (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Undo

I readded the picture so readers could imagine it more and I know that is a hypothetical moon, although it clearly states that Upsilon Angromedae d is in the upper right of the picture and the object in the foreground is an imagined moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dren5144 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

So my view on this is that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to help readers imagine, it is to inform them. Readers have this expectation of an encyclopedia, so when they see an image, they assume it is informative. Consequently, when images are intended to aid imagination rather than to inform, they are apt to mislead readers. It's pretty clear that this image is not informative (see my statement above), so it is likely misleading and in any case not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

@Dren5144: in view of this, would you be in favor of replacing this image with an informative one, such as a size comparison like this one? A2soup (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, A2soup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dren5144 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dren5144: So you would agree to replacing the artist's impression with a size comparison? A2soup (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

If I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dren5144 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I have, A2soup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dren5144 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know , sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dren5144 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem-- I didn't notice it myself when I suggested a size comparison. A2soup (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Orbital elements

The Periastron and Apastron distances appear to slightly contradict the eccentricity amount given in this article. There is no source linked to a paper for the Semi-major axis, Periastron and Apastron figures. The figures given in this article are 2.54 AU for the Semi-major, 1.88 AU for the Periastron and 3.19 AU for the Apastron. However, when I took the Semi-major axis figure of 2.54 AU and then calculated the Periastron and Apastron from that, using the eccentricity given of 0.299, I got for the Pariastron 2.54*(1-0.299)=1.781 AU and for the Apastron 2.54*(1+0.299)= 3.299 AU. As can be seen, that is different to what is given in this article by about 0.1 AU in each case. Was a mistake made in the calculation for Apastron and Pariastron in this article or by me, was the calculation perhaps done on a different Semi-major axis figure or were the Apastron and Pariastron figures taken from a different paper to the one for eccentricity figure and that's why they don't seem to quite match each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.235.166 (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Those values were added eight years ago before eccentricity was updated. PlanetStar 06:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Planetbox usage

The image in the infobox should not be used as it does not follow the usage guide for the template:

This template is part of a group of templates that are used to display information about a specific extrasolar planet.
Images of published planetary properties are preferred where available, especially when they are available from cited publications.
Artist's conception, regardless of the source, should be avoided.
Examples of acceptable images include
* direct images, such as one used for GJ 758 b, in the rare cases where these are available;
* output of a model that is integral to a cited paper, such as the image used in HD 80606 b;
* user-generated images that clearly illustrate published properties, such as the size comparisons currently used in GJ 1214 b or Gliese 436 b.

My edits followed these guidelines but were revered by User:MarioProtIV. I'm opening discussion as to why ...

--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like if the discussion was held here, rather then on all of the other pages. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Habitability section

This is an article about an exoplanet, so in that section, the habitability properties of planets should have been written only. But we see that the moon habitability is written also! Some parts are copied and pasted from Habitability of natural satellites article. Also, in Exomoon article it is stated that the existence of exomoons aren't confirmed yet; so speaking about moon habitability in an article about exoplanets doesn't make any sense. P.S. Sorry if I didn't make links. I am on mobile phone now. Aminabzz (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Upsilon Andromedae d.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)