| Revision as of 00:24, 30 December 2020 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Dating comment by Kepler-1229b - "→No: new section"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:48, 19 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,130 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tags: Talk banner shell conversion paws [2.2] | ||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | ||
| {{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|banner=yes|image=none|search=no}} | |||
| == |
==Merge talk== | ||
| {{Archive top |result = ''Agree to merging of the article(s) as per ] and ]. Argument that this should become SOP for the discovery of this and other sub-stellar objects makes sense, not just here, but project-wide, except for the few notable planets out there. No reason not to merge, '' ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 03:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC) <small>Non-Administrative closure</small> |status = closed}} | |||
| ⚫ | === No === | ||
| An unsourced sentence in the text describes both as ] based on luminosity, yet SIMBAD lists the A component as a giant. Further, the luminosity listed for the A component in the Details section of the starbox (1.991 solar) is consistent with neither the absolute magnitude (abs mag of 3.46 suggests a luminosity well in excess of 3 solar) nor the difference in magnitude between the two stars (7.09 - 6.48 = 0.61, which indicates 30 Ari A should be at least 75% brighter than 30 Ari B, rather than nearly the same). Given these discrepancies, I've updated the starbox with the data from SIMBAD and altered the luminosity of the A component. ] (]) 15:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | I do not think we should merge ]. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like ]. ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :See the paper Guenther et al. (2009) "<i>A substellar component orbiting the F-star 30 Arietis B</i>" (referenced in the article) for more about this: | |||
| :<blockquote>30 Ari A is listed in the SIMBAD database with a spectral type F6III. If true, the object should have an absolute brightness (<var>M<sub>v</sub></var>) of +1.4 mag. Using again the Hipparcos distance, the relative magnitude (<var>m<sub>v</sub></var>) would than be 4.4 mag, which is inconsistent with the observed brightness (Table 1). The <var>V</var> − <var>J</var> colours are 0.808 ± 0.02 for 30 Ari A and 1.02 ± 0.02 for 30 Ari B, and the <var>V</var> − <var>K</var> colours are 1.01±0.3 and 1.27±0.02 for components A and B, respectively. The colours are also inconsistent with a giant star but consistent with a main-sequence star. Using our high resolution spectra (see Sect. 3) and following the method described in Frasca et al. (2003) and Gandolfi et al. (2008), we find that 30 Ari A is an F5V star and 30 Ari B, and 30 Ari B and F6V star (Figs. 1; 2). Thus, the brightness, colours and the results of the spectroscopy show that both components are still on the main sequence stars.</blockquote> | |||
| :] (]) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Where's the merge proposal? == | |||
| ==Quadruple star== | |||
| If you will not add in the proposal then I will delete the merge template. ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :That would be unwise. The merge has been proposed and now should be discussed. How about we consider this section to be the merge discussion. It would be ideal if {{ping|SevenSpheresCelestia}} gave the rationale for the merge so we don't go off making things up on our own. I'll wait on giving my opinion until then. ] (]) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Apparently, some new vital information about the star system came available. http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/planet-reared-by-four-parent-stars/index.html#.VPd3LM2glZ4 --] (]) 21:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::k then ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 19:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::I proposed merging this, and some other articles on planet candidates now known to be stars, since Misplaced Pages (with a few exceptions) doesn't have separate articles on stellar components of a star system. If you want I can create merge proposal sections on the relevant talk pages. ] (]) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified == | |||
| :::Might be good. Not essential, but it gives people a starting point to discuss and even if nobody comments then its something to point to later. ] (]) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::* '''Merge/redirect''': per nom. There are several papers about the object, or about it and a small number of others, but we would only have a separate article about a minor component of a stellar system in exceptional circumstances (eg. ]). In this case, there is nothing especially notable about the substellar companion. Even as an exoplanet its only real claim to notoriety is all the discussion about how massive it is. ] already included discussion of this object and I hopefully clarified this in the light of the recent paper (peer-reviewed publication not yet reflected in the citation, but doi assigned and being published January 2021). ] (]) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| {{Archive bottom}} | |||
| I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010212147/http://www.nckas.org/images/objects/sao75471.jpg to http://www.nckas.org/images/objects/sao75471.jpg | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615144206/http://www.nckas.org/doublestars/ to http://www.nckas.org/doublestars/ | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | == No == | ||
| ⚫ | I do not think we should merge ]. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like ]. ] ] <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
Latest revision as of 02:48, 19 January 2024
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
|
Archives: 1 |
Merge talk
CLOSED Agree to merging of the article(s) as per weak consensus and Notability. Argument that this should become SOP for the discovery of this and other sub-stellar objects makes sense, not just here, but project-wide, except for the few notable planets out there. No reason not to merge, GenQuest 03:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Non-Administrative closureThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No
I do not think we should merge 30 Arietis Bb. Other planets that turned out to be non-planets have articles too, like HD 114762 b. Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Where's the merge proposal?
If you will not add in the proposal then I will delete the merge template. Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- That would be unwise. The merge has been proposed and now should be discussed. How about we consider this section to be the merge discussion. It would be ideal if @SevenSpheresCelestia: gave the rationale for the merge so we don't go off making things up on our own. I'll wait on giving my opinion until then. Lithopsian (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- k then Kepler-1229b talk — Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- I proposed merging this, and some other articles on planet candidates now known to be stars, since Misplaced Pages (with a few exceptions) doesn't have separate articles on stellar components of a star system. If you want I can create merge proposal sections on the relevant talk pages. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Might be good. Not essential, but it gives people a starting point to discuss and even if nobody comments then its something to point to later. Lithopsian (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect: per nom. There are several papers about the object, or about it and a small number of others, but we would only have a separate article about a minor component of a stellar system in exceptional circumstances (eg. Proxima Centauri). In this case, there is nothing especially notable about the substellar companion. Even as an exoplanet its only real claim to notoriety is all the discussion about how massive it is. 30 Arietis already included discussion of this object and I hopefully clarified this in the light of the recent paper (peer-reviewed publication not yet reflected in the citation, but doi assigned and being published January 2021). Lithopsian (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)