Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Artman40 (talk | contribs) at 03:38, 2 July 2014 (Artman40 moved page Talk:XO-2b to Talk:XO-2Nb: Two new planets were reported to orbit around the primary star, thus needing more precise designation. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.0251v1.pdf). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

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 retracting move of XO-2b.

Requested move

XO-2b → XO-2 b — The basic links to these extrasolar planets all poses a space between the designation. The main reason that the space is sometimes omitted is mainly laziness or fast typing. — NuclearVacuum 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Oppose. Papers mentioning this planet (e.g. Bakos 2007, the discovery paper Burke 2007, Burrows 2007, Lopez-Morales 2007, Kane 2008, Burrows 2008, Fortney 2008, Johns-Krull 2008) use the designation XO-2b, with no space. In addition, SIMBAD uses XO-2b with no space. The use by the Extrasolar Planets Enyclopaedia of a space is inconclusive since this source uniformly uses lower-case letters preceded by a space for planet designators even when, as in the case of PSR B1257+12, this is definitely wrong. (According to this discussion, this is due to a software limitation.) Spacepotato (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This shouldn't affect how the majority of astronomers state. Also, several discovery papers have the planet with no space (HD 209458 b was called "HD 209458b" in its discovery paper and still is called that in NASA and other news articles ). This space is not just used for planets, it is used for stars as well. The space is commonly used for public references (not so much scientific reference). — NuclearVacuum 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the preferred designator for HD 209458 b in the astronomical literature appears to be HD 209458b, with no space, the HD 209458 b article should be moved to HD 209458b. This appears to be preferred in popular references as well (37,000 v. 7,450 hits on Google.) Spacepotato (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not nessessary. In the astronomical majority always leave a space between the system and the object (no matter what). This is not about HD 209458 b (which I better not see be moved), this is about XO-2 b. — NuclearVacuum 19:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that the majority of astronomers use a space is not correct. A SIMBAD search found the papers above which used XO-2b, and I found no papers which used XO-2 b. Likewise, a Google Scholar search shows a preponderance of papers using HD 209458b (777 hits) rather than HD 209458 b (156 hits.) Spacepotato (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A space is always used for any astronomical object. Some websites (like SIMBAD) hardly separate the system name (XO-1) from the object name (B). Look at any article and you will aways see a space. There isn't even a clear reason why this is. — NuclearVacuum 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If there's no reason for adding the space, I would suggest not doing so. Spacepotato (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Placing a space between the system and the object is commonly used and should be exercised (no one says "51 Pegasib"). A space is used so there is no confusion between the system and the object name. — NuclearVacuum 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any confusion in this case because the system's designation ends with a string of numbers rather than a word. This is a difference between designators like 51 Pegasi and ε Eridani and designators like XO-2, WASP-1 and HD 209458. Spacepotato (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Spacepotato... seems like Original Research / Things Made Up in School type proposal. 70.55.86.139 (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Retract because I think I get how to name planets via SIMBAD and binary star names. — NuclearVacuum 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Stub-Class Astronomy articles
• Low-importance Astronomy articles
• Stub-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
• Stub-Class Astronomical objects articles
• Pages within the scope of WikiProject Astronomical objects (WP Astronomy Banner)