Talk:List of brown dwarfs

title

I think the title of this article should be changed to "List of stars with brown dwarf companions" or, perhaps better, "List of brown dwarfs". Timb66 08:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Big list of known brown dwarfs

At the time of writing, this site lists 608 known brown dwarfs. Dwarf Archives

Note that that site doesn't list the brown dwarfs only detected through radial velocity measurements (presumably because the radial velocity method gives only m*sin(i), so they are only candidate brown dwarfs - they might be red dwarfs), so if we're going to include those, the total number is going to be more than 608. Chaos syndrome 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only prefer 39 brown dwarf that are important. Most objects in the list orbit the stars like planets, 2 free-floating objects, and also 5 unconfirmed ones. I believed that most of all brown dwarfs are not very prominent. It is hard to find mass, discovery date, and location on celestial sphere for all brown dwarfs. The Extrasolar Visions can only list important brown dwarfs. If we want to include all brown dwarfs, will might add all rest of brown dwarfs to this article. If the list contain 608 brown dwarfs, the article would be much longer than the list of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets or soonly list of published extrasolar planets. If the article becomes to long, we can split into doughter articles, the doughter article may be list of brown dwarfs that orbit stars, list of interstellar brown dwarfs, and maybe list of unconfirmed brown dwarfs and list of brown dwarfs that were formerly planets. BlueEarth 18:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you don't use the Extrasolar Visions list to decide which brown dwarfs are "important": the main part of the site has not been updated since the tragic death of its creator in 2005. Chaos syndrome 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

DENIS-P J020529.0-115925 A/B/C

So, which table does this object fall under? The entire triplete are all brown dwarfs. Thanks, CarpD, 8/14/07.

No reason not to, but double check rulings for this like installerSalavge corvette control (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

G 196-3

Entry against distance is > 50 (light years), this is causing the entire column is evaluated as if it where strings, that is you get them sorted one number at at time thus ten then (one) hundreds, then twenties, unless anyone replies within one day, I will change the entry to just read 50 (light years)Salavge corvette control (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed brown dwarfs

This section is erroneous, with several objects (e.g. Upsilon Andromedae c, GQ Lupi b) not known to be brown dwarfs.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

spectral type, apparent magnitude

Why are the spectral type and apparent magnitude of the major star listed, instead of for the brown dwarf? The first two tables do this, while the third table (field brown dwarfs) gives the spectral type of the brown dwarf, and its apparent magnitude. The first two tables do not give this information about the brown dwarfs at all. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Most brown dwarfs are observed in the near-infrared J band which is different than the scale used for optical telescopes looking at the visual magnitude. -- Kheider (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

HD 149382

The substellar object orbiting HD 149382 has likely been refuted.[1] I'm going to tag the entry accordingly. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Unconstrained list

The criteria for inclusion in this list appears too broad, making it potentially enormous and impossible to ever complete. Hence I think it should be more constrained. See for example the "List of exceptional asteroids". Praemonitus (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, with a number of similar categories plus closest to the Solar System. --JorisvS (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of the WISE results are a result of the Wikipedia war of 2013, where I was the one doing most of the grunt work. -- Kheider (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"LHS 2065" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect LHS 2065 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 § LHS 2065 until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 17:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)