Talk:Tabby's Star/Archive 1

Paranormal connections?

I'm a long-time member of WikiProject Astronomy. However, considering the significance and alternative hypothesis concerning the subject matter of this article, I'm curious if this falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, as well. Would this perhaps warrant the category Unsolved problems in astronomy? This is not a suggestion, but hopefully an opening for a discussion on this talk page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 04:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know extraterrestrial life is not, by itself, a paranormal subject. Paranormal "things" are beyond normal experience or scientific explanation. This would be a fully scientific discovery (hypothesis → evidence → conclusion). BeŻet (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

WPParanormal covers other alien articles, so it would seem to be appropriate. As a suspected alien artefact, it would seem to be the project to be involved. It's not like it's the first time weird astrophysical phenomena have triggered alien-life explanations, just look at the discovery of pulsars, gamma-ray bursts, etc. The speculation of alien life would be what WPParanormal covers, while the real physics is what the hard science wikiprojects covers. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not ufology, this is astronomical science, regardless of what is ultimately discovered. Kortoso (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - imo - seems likely to be a "natural phenomena", albeit currently unexplained, rather than a "paranormal" one (ie, "existence ... [lies] beyond ... scientific explanation") worthy of "WP:Paranormal Watchers" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we had the same discussion once at the astrobiology(?) article. The paranormal tag was removed because it is a pseudoscientific approach. Even if it was a Dyson Sphere built by the Romulans, it would be physical object, and not a metaphysical/paranormal phenomena. I can see using that tag on "alien abductions", but not in astronomy/astrobiology. Finally, even SETI bases its research on scientific foundations, not in paranormal/pseudoscience. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sound reasoning. I'm inclined to agree with you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please let's avoid pseudoscience here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been looking at the UFO web sites, "UFO Casebook" and places like The UFO Chronicles, and this object seems to have gotten quite a bit of interest among the flying saucer set. A Google search on "KIC 8462852 flying saucers" yields some rather esoteric web sites, including old MUFON members from the BBS days chiming in after literally decades of having fallen silence.

It would be fascinating to get Michael Shermer to comment to add to the extant article, but that would be "original research" of a kin. Damotclese (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, aliens are just speculation. That we discovered something in orbit around the star that is similar to that which could be a Dyson sphere under construction does not mean that an alien presence built it. It could be some unknown natural process that creates something like that (like how basalt columns freeze out of magma and look like paved highways in the ocean were thought to be the roads built by faeries) which only appears to be an artificial construct but is a natural emergent artifact that looks just like a Dyson sphere from afar. So, WPParanormal due to the alien explanation. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is, there isn't a single reputable astronomer who thinks this is an alien megastructure. That's an intentional distortion made by the media. Instead, what we have are scientists pursuing a search for possible answers to the problem. One of these very unlikely answers that could explain the problem is an alien megastructure. However, it is not the answer at this time. This is the distortion the media keeps pushing. It's a classic damned if you do damned if you don't situation, and irresponsible journalists have made the problem worse. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Popular culture

I note that an editor has deleted the section "In popular culture" which described the coverage by Art Bell et al. Let me say that I do not dispute that decision. However, I do note that an advocate of Intelligent Design has also provided an interpretation from that point of view, which, if ever the decision is reached to include such things, one might consider mention of it. Just for the record: Evolution News and Views Seeking Alien "Megastructures" Around a Puzzling Star, Astronomers Debate Intelligent Design by David Klinghoffer October 14, 2015 3:12 PM. Just to make it abundantly clear, I am not suggesting that these are worthy of inclusion. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We can expect all of the crazies to be coming out of the woodwork now that the latest idiot belief is that there are "mega structures" in orbit about the primary. Would not surprise me to see the extant article needing short-term protection from the UFO and religious extremists. Damotclese (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any "crazies" coming out of the woodwork as you suggest. You are the one who sounds like an extremist. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto the above. I read nothing about "beliefs" here, "latest idiot" or otherwise. Kudos to those who have gotten this article up so quickly and so sanely. Highly interesting stuff. It will be fun to see how this develops. Mykstor (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Golly, such a lack of civility. And here I thought everyone used Facebook. Just because you don't encounter UFO crazies spewing conjectures about how this object means Dyson is "right" (among many other claims so far) is irrelevant. None of the believers have discovered this Wikipedia page yet. They're too busy watching the skies. Damotclese (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone suggesting that any recognition be given to these "popular culture" reactions to the star? I suggest that we prepare for the possibility by discussing what the proper reception should be. For example, if the main stream media pick up on the popular culture, does that thereby make it encyclopedic? If it is just an ephemeral phenomenon, it should be ignored. TomS TDotO (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Genuinely significant mainstream media reactions would be appropriate to mention here. Reactions in UFO spheres could go in appropriate fringe articles, but should be treated as WP:ONEWAY. Rhoark (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

As expected, most of the mainstream reactions to even posing the question have been sensationalized and distorted beyond recognition. At best, this is a general exercise for getting laypeople on board with SETI and its search targets. At worst, this is nonsense. Interested people are aware of the search for Dyson spheres and know that the parameters of this search have nothing to do with pop culture. It is difficult for most people to consider big questions, particularly questions that don't impact their everyday life, therefore the media intentionally injects silliness and absurdity into such topics to keep the attention of their audience. Popular culture is not a bar to set our standards by, it's the lowest limit for credulity. Viriditas (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial names

Have any of these gained traction beyond Jason's blog post? If not, it might be best to remove these. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: FWIW - Yes - the "unofficial" names (ie, "Tabby's star" and "WTF star") are also mentioned at the following: REF-1 - and REF-2 - and REF-3 - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the name 'WTF', it is precise and descriptive of the current knowledge.  :-/ BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - "WP:Redirects" to "KIC 8462852" have been created for *all* the unofficial names (ie, "LGM-2"; "Tabby's star"; "the WTF star"; "WTF star") noted by astronomer Jason Wright in his original posting. - to be clear, "LGM" refers to "Little Green Men" and is related to "LGM-1"; "Tabby" refers to lead author "Tabetha S. Boyajian"; and "WTF" refers to "Where's The Flux" - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

References

On Facebook there have been a large number of names given to what people are assuming is an artifact in orbit, there is a Facebook group that was created and then surrendered under a massive "Goatening" troll barrage. That brings up the question about naming conventions for significant objects, and who gets to name the planetary debris which apparently is in orbit. Damotclese (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Tabby's Star has been published on numerous websites now. A simple Google search shows significant sites referencing Jason's blog post. I believe the name is a valid entry on this wiki page. --Pchov (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Popularity does not change the naming conventions. Just because a lot of news websites mindlessly regurgitate bad science does not make bad science reality, likewise nor does it make 'Tabby's Star' a possible name for a star. The star cannot be named by the media, no matter how much they like to think it can be, and the name choices themselves are absolutely not within the conventions. Even WTF would be rejected outright. And no, you cannot name it Stary McStarface. The perpetual readding of 'Tabby's Star' (the most gregarious of breaches of convention,) just because the media have called it that doesn't change the manner in which stars are named and until a name is appointed beside the one it has been given it will be KIC 846852. Outside of 'WTF' in the astronomical community there is no academic reference to it by 'Tabby's Star' nor would there be for that very reason. It is considered very poor form to name an object after a person who found it or was involved in research on it, and there is not one single other astronomical feature to break this tradition / convention, nor will there be. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 07:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What about Barnard's star? Many (hard core science) articles use this name, such as Benedict, G. Fritz, et al. "Interferometric Astrometry of Proxima Centauri and Barnard's Star Using HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE Fine Guidance Sensor 3: Detection Limits for Substellar Companions". The Astronomical Journal 118.2 (1999): 1086. Or Hind's Crimson Star?

We are not changing the name of the article, just listing the alternative names that have been used. Since it is used quite a bit we should have it mentioned here. The first sentence is the place for this to go. Wikipedia's job is not to enforce official names, but to reflect what is used in publications on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears we have a problem with guard dogs reverting in single figure minutes any modification to the article. I think we'll be needing a 3O on this. People aren't even reading the talk page or discussing just using a 3RR pin to keep things as they want them. Whether this is through ignorance or intentional it is clearly problem behaviour and I doubt that consensus will be reached as long as it continues. I'll wait for the next expected arbitrary revert without discussion before proceeding, unless anyone else has any other suggestions? <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 08:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

user: while what you wrote in your first post might be true for the academic community, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and if the media gives a name to anything, and it sticks, then it's up to us to report that fact. If readers arrive at this article - maybe via the Tabby's star redirect - we should explain why the star has been given that name because that's what a lot of readers will be interested in knowing.  —SMALLJIM  08:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Therein lies the problem. It hasn't stuck. Outside of the initial copy-paste journalism. Doggedly attempting to make it stick using 3RR and instant reverts isn't appropriate conduct either. Especially when there is discussion about the complete redundancy of it's inclusion. Also I always thought that what is fact and verifiable is more important than what people are interested in reading about? The way it 'got that name' is the media not verifying it's science articles and merely copy pasting. I would hazard that there probably isn't a non News Corp source available out there using "Tabby's Star" as they are the main offenders of copy paste journalism that led me to investigate why this article is perpetuating their attempt to play 'science' like toddlers playing house. But as I said, there is no other astronomical body named after a living person involved in the finding of or researching of an astronomical body. If you have a compelling reason this should be the first besides 'a lot of journalists cut and paste stuff' I'm happy to listen to it, but otherwise I'm inclined to agree with the folks above who seem to have been arbitrarily dismissed and / or given up on the issue. The absurd tabloidal coverage of this issue has led to enough travesty without journalists (and I use that term loosely) deciding that they can dictate to science what's what. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 08:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You're making the issue more complicated than it really is. Have you done a search? People will have heard of the name because of the wide coverage, therefore we should mention it. I'm not arguing for the retention of the exact wording as it is now, nor its position in the article. If the name drops out of use, then the mention can be relegated to lower down in the article, but there'll never be any reason to remove it altogether. I assume that you must also want to delete the redirect Tabby's star?  —SMALLJIM  09:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree Tabby's star should stay. Wikipedia standard is to list common synonymns that are notable, not only those that are scientific. This (and WTF) are surely notable as they occur in many mainstream (if not scientific) sources. It is used in at least some scientific articles, since as "Linear regression slopes of 41 stars (black circles) and “Tabby’s star” (red square) versus B magnitude (top) and B − V (middle)." from "KIC 8462852 Did Likely Not Fade During The Last 100 Years" by Hippke et al. Of course this is only a pre-print so far, but shows at least some scientists use the name. LouScheffer (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. But one problem which I don't think has been raised is using a nickname of the scientist, rather than her formal name. Why not "Boyajian's star"? We don't refer to "Al's theory of relativity". Is this because we don't quite take a female scientist seriously? Would I like some product of my work being called "Tom's discovery"? Excuse me, but I just had to mention this and I'll shut up. TomS TDotO (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Ike and Al are dead, but Tabby is not. Has she expressed an opinion? LouScheffer (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - a casual Google search for "Boyajian's star" (with quotes) seems to show *6 results*; for "Boyajian star", *1260 results* instead - Comparisons: for "Tabby's star", *12,300 results*; for "WTF star", *55,100 results*; and for "KIC 8462852", *305,000 results* - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Star" is a pretty common word, and "WTF star", in particular, has references to stars of the Hollywood type. "Kepler" is not so common. Looking for "Tabby Kepler" (without the quotes) finds 93,100 references. "WTF Kepler" finds 161,000. LouScheffer (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Tabby's Star" and "WTF star" belong in the lead because they were used by sources. "Boyajian's Star" (and similar forms) do not because they're Wikipedia neologisms. I don't like the name and agree that's a problem, but it's not our problem, and previous attempts to remove "Tabby's Star" have all failed to reach consensus. I will oppose any neologism as OR, but I'm open to removal if a considerable length of time passes without it being taken up by other sources. For me that'll be sometime after October, or maybe later if no new sources mention the star at all in the meantime. Geogene (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, it's not actually unheard of to nickname a star after a person's first name; see Tycho's Star. That redir has an almost 10 year old pedigree.[1] Yes, the nickname "Tabby's Star" is a silly, mass media driven appelation. But our project shares the same goal with the media in this case: to make knowledge accessible to as many readers as possible. Let's not be technocrats and lose sight of that. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Media hyperbole

It's worth reading "Why it’s so hard for astronomers to discuss the possibility of alien life", The Verge - there's a lot of media hyperbole around about this topic, which we should avoid repeating in this article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thanks for sharing the link - seems worthy imo - added to the article - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Science Fiction Portal

Should a Science Fiction portal be included? The Dyson Sphere hypothesis is a valid one, and science fiction is the genre from which it came. It wouldn't be the first time that the literature has informed the science, albeit peripherally in this case. kencf0618 (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no, but the situation is tricky. Adding the portal may be misleading in the sense that it may seem to some readers that this whole thing is just fiction, while one or more astronomers proposed it as a serious (though far-fetched) hypothesis. On the other hand, you are right that there exists a connection to Science Fiction, and the Dyson Sphere article says that the Spheres first appeared in SF before Dyson explored the concept in a scientific way. Gap9551 (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair point. And along those lines I've written an article for Tabetha S. Boyajian which focuses on the astronomy. It'll be very interesting to see how this plays out! kencf0618 (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that merely being tangentially related to science fiction does not mean we have to treat it the same. In the context that we're using it in this article, it has no relation to fiction, just to science. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That the provenance of the Dyson sphere/swarm is that of science fiction bears mention, I think, but that said I await further developments. kencf0618 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are unaware that the search for Dyson spheres has been ongoing for almost a decade (or more than a decade depending on how you define a search). This search has nothing to do with science fiction. Viriditas (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware the the SETI search for Dyson spheres. In any case their science fiction provenance belongs on the Dyson sphere article proper, not here, so thanks. And it's only a click away, anyway. kencf0618 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as there is no science fiction element present. If the object turns out to be an extraterrestrial megastructure, it will be treated as science fact. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Video Licenses

Are the externally linked videos licensed properly for Wikipedia? kencf0618 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, they're not. Nor are they particularly useful. Removed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Tabetha S. Boyajian for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tabetha S. Boyajian is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabetha S. Boyajian until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Additional note: I placed this notification here because Tabetha S. Boyajian is the lead author of the paper about KIC 8462852, and her connection to this star was the reason her article was created. Following notofication instructions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I did not nominate this article myself. Gap9551 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Dress, Megastructures, and Telescope Time

I present The Dress (viral phenomenon) is a useful template for this article, inasmuch it too documents a confluence of media frenzy and science (both the science and the media circus being worthy of due attention). I have seen no media account whatsoever which doesn't include the hypothetical ET megastructure angle, but obviously we should pay keen heed to the follow-up studies. kencf0618 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is not about social "viral" phenomena but about astronomy. Lets keep the focus on scientific method. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, "due attention." Scientists have blogs. kencf0618 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal is really a bad idea. Please read this article to understand why. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You can't just ignore the hyperbole; the extensive media coverage is a part of the story too. The sexiest hypothesis meant that Betteridge's law of headlines held sway. And I read that article days ago. kencf0618 (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

That circus is not information. Stories are not data. BatteryIncluded (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Stories can be data, depending on exactly what one is studying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

You read the article days ago, but evidently, failed to understand it. I suggest you also read WP:RECENTISM. Look, I'm not trying to be an asshole. But you've proposed so many bad ideas on this page that I think you may not be reading for comprehension. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Viriditas (talk) 06:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Or course this is not a viral phenomenon as The Dress was, but it is a journalistic story too, i.e. a story about journalism. That said I don't think that merits a subsection at this point, so I'll just leave that here for now. kencf0618 (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Graphics to explain observed variation?

Not sure if these pictures come from any of our references, but something like this might be useful to include? Of course, we'd need to check licensing details and perhaps put them on wikimedia. Tayste (edits) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Those graphs come from the Boyajian paper, and remain copyrighted. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Telescope Time and Peer Review

Regarding the follow-up studies, the gathering of the data by whatever facility to the peer review process to publication takes at least a few weeks. The Allen Telescope Array's initial perusal has apparently just concluded. Any ideas on how to collect and present the (presumably upcoming) announcements of data collection from the Green Bank Telescope and the Very Large Array Radio Telescope? These decisions are made by committee, of course, but I have no idea if there is some sort of omnibus source suitable for Wikipedia which we can use, or even sources for each telescope. This is astronomy procedural stuff, and we have to get it right. kencf0618 (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I think a periodic keyword search on ArXiv will be sufficient. I expect any studies would get pre-published there. Folks can also occasionally check the Astrophysics Data System for papers, though updates there can experience significant delays. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. As far as I can tell Vakoch's announcements are the exception that proves the rule, inasmuch as neither astronomers nor telescope institutions typically broadcast what they're looking at, so those are the to-go sources. kencf0618 (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Asking for time on these telescopes through the standard Calls for Proposals takes at least 6 months, or more likely a year before publishable results are available - see e.g. [2]. This can be sped up by asking for director's discretionary time, but it's not clear if that is the case here, and even then you're still talking many months. The best place to watch is astro-ph on arXiv, or if something particularly timely/interesting happens then you might see preliminary announcements on the Astronomer's Telegram. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. kencf0618 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kencf0618 and Huntster: arXiv:1511.01606 came out today, from Allen Telescope follow-up observations. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kencf0618 and Huntster: arXiv:1511.08821 might be of interest, it's a theory paper rather than new observations though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Mike Peel: Thanks for the suggested reference - added to the main article - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Another arXiv paper/reference, the first on optical follow-up observations: arXiv:1512.02388, "Optical SETI Observations of the Anomalous Star KIC 8462852". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) [unsigned, but posted ~ 05:06, 9 December 2015‎]

 Done @Mike Peel: Thanks for the new reference - added to the main article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Drbogdan. :-) It's good to add new references, but hopefully the content in them can also be used to expand the article a bit? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thank you for your comment - Yes - *entirely* agree - nonetheless, adding the new reference to further support the existing text seemed sufficient - at least afaik at 1st glance - adding more text is *entirely* ok with me of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

One more that came out today: arXiv:1512.03693, "Constraints on the circumstellar dust around KIC 8462852". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done @Mike Peel: Added following text/ref to main article ("Hypothesis" section) => More recent studies suggest that a "catastrophic planetary disruption" explanation is unlikely. - *entirely* ok w/ me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

And another: arXiv:1601.03256, "KIC 8462852 Faded at an Average Rate of 0.165+-0.013 Magnitudes Per Century From 1890 To 1989". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Another today: arXiv:1602.00987, "A Search for Brief Optical Flashes Associated with the SETI Target KIC 846285". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drbogdan:. Mike Peel (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done@Mike Peel: Thanks for the recent ref - added edit to article - ok to ce of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

On speculation by the media

The current text reads The discovery paper suggested that it could be due to exocomets passing in front of the star, whereas it was widely speculated in the media that it could be signs of activity associated with intelligent extraterrestrial life (a hypothesis not mentioned in the discovery paper). I realize that the astronomers agree the comets are by far the more likely explanation, but this statement seems to attribute the ETI hypothesis to the media. It's made worse by pointing out that ETI wasn't mentioned in the discovery paper--that's true, but according to the Atlantic article the lead author of that paper brought the lightcurves to a SETI-type astronomer with a background in theoretical Dyson-shell type lightcurves and said "please look at this". ETI is still a significant angle, not something the tabloids made up. Geogene (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. I reverted it to the original text. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey! What was wrong with the version at [3]? Mike Peel (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As Geogene said: clarifying that was not something the tabloids made up. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I kept trying to include this provenance, but I kept running into edit conflicts. Wright is mentioned in the body of the article, and needed to be brought higher up and his role clarified. His follow-up hypothesis was the catalyst for the media frenzy, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

His hypothesis is in the introduction. The names and dates can be explained in the body of the article. Even there, we don't have to mirror the media "circus" and keep clear of the fringe. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

His hypothesis isn't listed in the header as his. There are several hypotheses, but shouldn't it made clear that there was the discovery paper and then the follow-up paper? Who hypothesized what, when? kencf0618 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Again: The introduction is a summary of the highlights. The names, places, dates and circus go in the body of the article. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well in that case we're good to go! kencf0618 (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(belated reply, sorry) It's worth noting that the original sentence said "speculated *in* the media" rather than *by* the media - I wasn't meaning to imply that this was only from media speculation before. I preferred the version that I linked to above but was reverted, in particular mentioning the amplification of that hypothesis by the media and the clarification that the hypothesis came from Wright not from the discovery paper, but the current sentence seems to be balanced enough. (I've made a few clarifying tweaks to it just now, but nothing major). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

2MASS J20061546+4427248 Image?

I notice that the 2MASS article has an image of a brown dwarf (which does not have an article). Public domain, tax payers, so an image of KIC 8462852, a.k.a. 2MASS J20061546+4427248, a.k.a. TYC 3162-665-1, would be appropriate. kencf0618 (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive: File:KIC 8462852 in IR and UV.png. Its an infrared and ultraviolet side-by-side. If anything about the image needs to be adjusted, I'll keep the raw files around for a bit. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There is this one in Flickr: [4]. BatteryIncluded (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

We have no idea what that image's origins are, whether that uploader actually has rights to that image. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the imagery! kencf0618 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Lopsided star"

Does the person suggesting this hypothesis have any scientific credentials? Seems like I recall that possibility being considered and rejected. Geogene (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ncsr11: plus, it's the Daily Mail. If there are other tabloid sources already in the article, they should be removed. Geogene (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it from the article. That Daily Mail piece was atrocious. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The entirety of the article needs to be erased and re-written

... along the course of reviewing not only the below link, but it's original evaluation papers as a star.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.01606 Ncsr11 (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you have to review the article and its references before you blow it up. It is still a star and no ET were detected so far. BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm confused as to why the article would first need to be scrapped. It's entirely valid, and a single pre-print saying nothing was detected can simply be integrated into the existing prose. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Title and lead

Some time has passed since the DYK. It looks like "Tabby's Star" has caught on for obvious reasons. Should the title change? Also, the lead still mentions WTF, is that still even used? Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - "Tabby's Star" (with relevant redirects of course) (flexible atm re "WTF Star") is *entirely* ok with me - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the title should change - in the scientific literature the KIC number is used, and in the cases I've seen where "Tabby's Star" is mentioned it comes after the KIC number. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The KIC number is the primary means of identification in every way that matters. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, our WP:COMMONNAME policy matters. When I want to google my way to this article or recent news about it, I search for "Tabby's Star", not "KFC 8675309" (was I close?). Admittedly, once I find the actual "star chart number" I'm bright enough to google for that once again and I usually do get more info that way.

The job of the encyclopedia isn't to hide information behind erudite codes which only specialists in their field can know, understand, and remember. I would absolutely support a move proposal; and if this star pops back up into the popular consciousness again I'll propose it myself. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC) (Although, after a great deal of thought, while I'll admit it's a little awkward given that stars named after men all seem to go with their last names, is there a less pronounceable name on that list than Boyajian?)

Thankfully, Googling "Tabby's Star" pops this article up as the first thing in the results, and that term also redirects to this article if typed into Wikipedia's search. But, I understand where you're coming from, even if I disagree. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Tabby's Star" in Google generates 13,900 results. "KIC 8462852" generates 448,000. Geogene (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the KIC number seems common enough, unlike e.g. the official name for Scholz's star. Gap9551 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

(Tycho's Star is technically named after a first name, though he went by Tycho and the name is only a redirect. Gap9551 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC))

A multiplanetary system only 13 ly from KIC 8462852

I just checked the Exoplanets Data Explorer and have found that there is a star with confirmed exoplanets near KIC 8462852. It's Kepler-106. Only 13 ly between it and KIC 8462852 (calculated with this tool).

It's a Sun-like star, the system is multiplanetary, and one of the planets is a super-Earth.

Although I'm not sure if Kepler-106 is the nearest such star to KIC 8462852.

Dear fellow astronomy enthusiasts, could you please check if it's indeed the nearest known star with exoplanets? --Thereisnous (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I smell WP:SYNTHESIS upwind. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll not add this information to the article till I find a reputable source confirming it --Thereisnous (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the distances of those stars are known with a precision better than 10 ly, but I did not find uncertainty estimates for either of them. I also don't see the point. There are probably closer stars with exoplanets, we just didn't find them yet. So what? Exoplanets are common. --mfb (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I think user Thereisnous wants to build case for the builders of the Dyson swarm at the star. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No. My interest is based on the fact that neighboring stars are usually born from the same material and often have similar characteristics. If some neighboring star has multiple planets, then the probability of KIC 8462852 having multiple planets is higher. It's IMHO an important part of the explanation of the strange form of the light curve.

Although, I'm not dismissing the megastructure hypothesis. Not very probable, but we must check it too. --Thereisnous (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"neighboring stars are usually born from the same material" - that is true for the time of formation only. Stars have relative velocities, over millions of years "nearby" changes completely. --mfb (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. But in some cases relative velocities are small enough to trace it for billions years. For example, Alpha Centauri has a relative speed of 24.8 km/s. It's only 87 ly per billion years, in spite of the fact that its speed is unusually high --Thereisnous (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

No, as given above by Batteryincluded. And, the Sun probably has 100 or sibling stars, none of them have been identified because they're scattered across the galaxy by now, as Mfb said. So you wouldn't really expect this star's neighbors to be useful anyway. Even if it were, a study here would be original research. Geogene (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sun's twin: HD 162826 110 ly, and the Sun's clone: HP 56948, but I don't think we should be adding exoplanets lightyears away in this article, only those that are proved to belong to the star itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Although we can add some brief info about the neighborhood of the star --Thereisnous (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the use of it, but at least specify it is too far to disturb (or not shown to disturb) the Oort cloud of KIC 8462852. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

24.8 km/s is 83 light years per million years. Or 83,000 thousand light years per billion years. Given the size of our galaxy, that is basically "anywhere". And that speed is not unusually high. --mfb (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've miscalculated it. Yes, per million years. --Thereisnous (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop off Heather Anne Campbell's song about Tabby's star

Not sure if it's worth including, but hey. Serendi^podous 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

CfA study

planet collisions unlikely- comet breakup plausible, but mechanism uncertain. Serendi^podous 06:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Maintain Objectivity

Please post only known scientific fact at the top of this article. Details about the light readings and the nature of the object. It is accepted that if life is common in the universe, visual evidence is not only likely but certain. In any case, this sighting is significant and if void of intelligent activity must contain massive new science that will expand our understanding of star formation and evolution. Scottprovost (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

– I second that. The Alien Hypothesis is backed by nothing, the scientific -blanc- could as well be filled with "God". Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and there is none but unsubstantiated speculation supporting Aliens as cause for the phaenomenon. As an encyclopedia you should not engage in this, or move the article to "popular" or "human interest". as long as we don't know the cause of the phaenomenon ist is just unexplained, period. Anything beyond that is pure speculation and should not be furthered by The Wikipedia. If Wikipedia choses to keep the speculations it becomes the source for this speculation itself, and it is not the job of an encyclopedia (if it should be taken serious) to become involved as an active agent in the content of the article it wants to depict objectively. this does no good for the scientific community, nor for the reader. 109.193.232.13 (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far to say that "if life is common in the universe, visual evidence is not only likely but certain". It's probable that single-cell life is common, but Kardashev civilizations (IMHO) are still a matter of speculation. Kortoso (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In the interest of maintaining objectivity, I've edited the language describing competing hypotheses to minimize bias. First, I've added one summary sentence of the main flaw of each hypothesis mentioned. [Edit] As previously written, the introduction included a rebuttal to the Dyson Sphere hypotheses, but described no rebuttals or flaws with more natural explanations. Given that the primary reason the Dyson swarm hypotheses has any merit the inadequacy of the other hypotheses presented, its odd to exclude flaws other than to bias the reader early on against this one specific hypothesis. Further, I've conformed the language to describe the Dyson swarm hypothesis as an actual hypothesis as opposed to mere speculation. [Edit] All hypotheses are speculative until they are tested and proven, but to describe only one as speculative has an implication that it is not scientific despite that it is also testable. Lastly, I'm replacing the criticism of the Dyson swarm with the more robust rebuttal that is featured later in the article. [Edit] The application of Occam's razor and the fact that no prior extraterrestrial civilizations have been detected is the main flaw of this theory, not that SETI has failed to detect radio signals. The lack of radio signals does not disprove the presence of an advanced technological megastructure, it just disproves the existence of one that emits radio signals. Its a much greater presumptive leap to assume the existence of a heretofore now undetected advanced extraterrestrial civilization than to assume that a civilization advanced enough to build megastructures large enough block over 20% of a star's light have technology that does not use or emit radio spectra. Frankly, its a bit myopic to posit the fanciful yet intriguing premise of alien megastructures surrounding stars yet focus on the idea that such structures would behave in the manner of technologies that the human race has none of for about a century. Behack(talk) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Red Dwarf Companion

"KIC 846285... is an F-type main-sequence star with a red dwarf companion."
Obviously in a stable orbit, Please discuss. 207.161.175.69 (talk)

Not looking for speculation or original research, but wondering how they can know that much and nothing else about the RD. Please discuss.207.161.175.69 (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This is news to me. There seems to be a red dwarf 880 AU away, but they are not orbiting around their common center of mass. I think this binary characterization (e.g. companion) should be deleted. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the mention should be deleted, but I thought the paper made it sound like there was ambiguity regarding the red dwarf's status...that it was unknown whether there was any relation between the two objects. Was this clarified elsewhere? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The red dwarf is not necessarily a companion, it is an interloper (and quite possibly interstellar instead of a companion). It's the star that rammed through the Oort Cloud and unleashed the cloud of comets that makes it look like a Dyson sphere. If it were a companion, then it would be a Nemesis star. Also "Please discuss" is a very bad way to request something. Instead of making a statement and requesting discussion, you should pose your question on what you are looking for. WP:NOTAFORUM Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If another small star had collided/combined with KIC in the recent past, the initial energy release would then die down in a prolonged and irregular fading, as the internal structure of the new object sorted itself out. There would also be minimal emission in the infrared, as there would have been few actual collisions between the 2 stars' dark companions/material, and temperature/energy levels within the star itself might be too high for a pronounced infrared signature. This doesn't seem to have been discussed at any length in the Article. 74.216.29.236 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@ user 74.216.29.236: If a WP:Reliable source has dealt with that subject, then it can be included; otherwise it is WP:OR, which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC "Red Dwarf Companion: Discuss"

Can we get some opinions on the issue raise above about the companion/non-companinon Red Dwarf in the article, and also whether and RFC is required or just the request to "discuss." 74.216.6.239 (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I am not user 74.216.29.236, it seems (not me) just an interesting coincidence. 74.216.6.239 (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Can the proposer of this RfC please state the specific options for the article? Arch (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe the original question in the section above is that it seems very remiss that the RD is not mentioned in the article considering the impact on all options and theories about the system. 74.216.6.239 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Can the creator of this RFC state the specific text to be added to the article and sources? If not please cancel this RFC. CuriousMind01 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I would also call for this RFC to be cancelled, there does not seem to be a question here to consider, discuss or comment on. SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the cancel of this RfC. There doesn't seem to be anything clear to discuss. Tessaract2^Talk 14:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like discussion on this page hasn't quite reached the level of needing an RFC. 74.216.6.239, have you had a chance to review BatteryIncluded's suggestion regarding submitting a source to support your claim above? Lizzius (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Been fading since 1890

http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03256 KIC 8462852 Faded at an Average Rate of 0.165+-0.013 Magnitudes Per Century From 1890 To 1989

Hcobb (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The plot there looks more like two dimming events, a linear decrease gives a poor fit. --mfb (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

More on the big fade http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/oct/13/starbucks-coffee-climate-change-threat Hcobb (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you mean https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28786-comets-cant-explain-weird-alien-megastructure-star-after-all/

or http://gizmodo.com/the-case-of-the-so-called-alien-megastructure-just-got-1753269810 --ArdentMaverick (talk) 24.107.87.169 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Added related text/refs (see below) to the main article ("Hypothesis" section):

Copied from main article:

... A later study, published on 13 January 2016, suggests the star has gradually dimmed from 1890 to 1989 by about 20%, making the explanation of a swarm of comets less likely. According to the researcher, "The comet-family idea was reasonably put forth as the best of the proposals, even while acknowledging that they all were a poor lot ... But now we have a refutation of the idea, and indeed, of all published ideas.”

References

Hope this helps in some way - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the edit of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It makes no sense. One thing is the gradual dimming over a century and another one is the transitional dip (22%) in luminosity. Yes, the phenomena is natural, but I don't see how the researcher can say he explained it this way. I'd list it as another hypothesis. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

BRIEF Followup - not sure about this atm - but is there some conflation of events being presented in the study? - ie, about 20 % century-long dimming and about 20 % within-day dimmings - perhaps - the century-long dimming may be *entirely* unrelated to the explanation of a swarm of comets presented for the within-day dimmings? - perhaps the edit (see blockquote above), rather than being "making the explanation of a swarm of comets less likely", should be "*may* make the explanation of a swarm of comets less likely" instead - or perhaps - should omit the reference to an explanation of a swarm of comets altogether in the edit? - after all - seems unclear to me atm how the two events, besides the possibly coincidental 20% dimming of each, may even be related in fact - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The current structure of section "Luminosity" is confusing: First it explains one of the observed phenomena (the dip), then starts a subsection "Hypotheses", and while discussing one of the hypotheses, it mentions another important observation (the fading). I would find it clearer to

• first list the two observed phenomena (the dip and the fading),
• then go on to the hypotheses and how they can or cannot explain the two phenomena.

Professor Tournesol (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - moved the fading observation (& refs) from the "Hypothesis" section to the "Luminosity" section as suggested - and as follows:

"... A later study, published on 13 January 2016, and which may (or may not) be related to the within-day dimmings, suggests the star has gradually faded from 1890 to 1989 by about 20%."

References

*Entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edit of course - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Or not?

See arXiv:1601.07314, "KIC 8462852 did likely not fade during the last 100 years", which concludes that the fading is most likely a data artefact. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Mike Peel: Thank you for the latest study that the century-long dimming of the star is more likely a data artifact than an actual astrophysical event - added relevant text to the main article - *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Or yes?

Response from Bradley Schaefer. Didn't check it in detail. --mfb (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - updated article with new text & latest ref - hope the edits are ok - *entirely* ok to ce of course - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

References

@Mfb and Drbogdan: it looks like the authors of the paper above (Hippke & Angerhausen) have done an update to their paper on arxiv based on this - see version 2 of [5]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done - @Mike Peel and Mfb: Thanks for the newer (8 February 2016) ref (ref added to the main article) - seems more work is reported to try and strengthen Hippke and Angerhausen's original conclusion (posted 27 January 2016) that the century-long dimming of KIC 8462852 may be a data artifact - rather than an actual astrophysical phenomenon - Thanks again for the ref - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Removed from article

I've removed both mentions of this dimming from the article with this edit, and it should stay out until there is better confirmation or it has at least been peer reviewed. This back-and-forth amongst astronomers is unbecoming for what should be an encyclopedic article. I've copied the material below for future reference.

---

---

You should added it back in http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=35666 Schaefer strongly refuted Hippkie's paper.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehberf (talk • contribs) 18:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

A later study, published on 13 January 2016, and which may (or may not) be related to the within-day dimmings, indicates the star has gradually faded from 1890 to 1989 by about 20%, which is unprecedented for any F-type main sequence star. However, a study published in February 2016 concluded that the possible century-long dimming was likely a data artifact, and not a real astrophysical event. The criticism of the study (that the findings of the century-long dimming is a data artifact) has itself been called into question. The criticism did not address or refute any data on KIC 8462852. This criticism also failed to address the lack of change in nearby "control" stars which were used for comparison.

---

Astronomer Bradley Schaefer studied photographic plates of the star from Harvard University, and, after averaging the data, found that the star had gradually dimmed by 20% between 1890 and 1989. He believes that it is extremely unlikely that one star would suffer two different mechanisms unique to that star and that only manifest in dimming the starlight by up to 20%; for this reason Schaefer thinks that the comets hypothesis is invalidated since dimming caused by comets over one century and within days is unrealistic. A separate study concluded that the possible century-long dimming is more likely a data artifact than a real astrophysical event. However, this study, suggesting that the century-long dimming is a data artifact, has been questioned. As of February 2016, none of the related studies have been peer reviewed.

References

--— Huntster (t @ c) 06:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong or right, this is a very important study as regards the history of this star, and should be included in some form. Either that or we keep deleting good faith edits and engendering pointless antipathy among new editors. Serendi^podous 14:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How is it an important study if it was not properly reviewed/approved, and has been outright refuted by another researcher? Editing is a natural part of the evolution of an article...to paraphrase what used to be written below the edit box, "If you do not want your contribution to be mercilessly edited, please do not submit it here." — Huntster (t @ c) 15:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Hunster in this one. A flawed study that did not make it past peer-review is hardly historic. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"That study has now been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed Astrophysical Journal." Happy now? http://phys.org/news/2016-05-natural-alien-mystery-star-behavior.html Bjj8383 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that both studies are accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals, it's time to add this back. It's not unbecoming, it's the way science works. LouScheffer (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do people keep removing the 100 year dimming?

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=35666

Schaefer strongly refuted Hippkie's paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehberf (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Because it was a speculation that was refuted really fast: [6]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That paper is from before the article Wehberf linked to, in fact he discusses it in the article. It is currently still a live debate and not refuted. There seems no good reason to be removing sourced discussion of it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, until the hundred year thing is peer reviewed (and it hasn't been afaik), I see no reason to include it. The refutation has been published in The Astrophysical Journal. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It has been peer reviewed and published - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L34/meta . Again I do not see why sourced discussion of this controversy should be removed. The eventual resolution of said controversy could have a significant impact on the subject of this article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's marked as "in press" at Ap J Letters here, meaning it has been peer reviewed and accepted. Also, Schaefer took the trouble to answer Hippke's objections and re-do his analysis in that light, and in turn raised objections to Hippke's analysis. As far as I know, Hippke has not done any re-analysis given Schaefer's main objections (need to pick comparison stars that are constant, non-binary, nearby, and close in color and brightness). These seem like quite reasonable criteria, and Schaefer has provided a number of stars that fit these requirements. So why has not Hippke re-done his analysis with better comparison stars? The cynic in me suspects he has, but did not like what he saw. In any case what is needed at this point is an analysis by a third party, preferably of a different set of plates. There are rumors of such an analysis but nothing published yet. LouScheffer (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Donut graphic

   I've replaced

One hypothetical example of an occlusion of 22% a circle's area. This does not necessarily represent what occurred at KIC 8462852

(... which, BTW is illiterate in putting a period after a noun phrase -- not a sentence -- and following it with a sentence that has been deprived of its period) with

One hypothetical example of occlusion of 22% of a spherical body's cross-section

for several additional reasons:

1. Most of the article's readers probably understand "hypothetical", so the

This ...52 text

text is redundant (and IMO insulting).

2. Yes, it's a circle, but we care about it being that, only implicitly and bcz that's the image our instrument would record, of what would presumably approximate a sphere.

   Rather than risk leaving the impression that that makes everything fine, i'll add my opinion that (subject to a consensus i expect will emerge) fixing the caption is a necessary interim measure, but the donut graphic adds only a distraction in the way of comprehension, so both that graphic and its caption should be removed.
--Jerzy•t 18:38 & 19:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I too think it is distracting (at best) and misleading. The occluding body -if that is what it is- may also be gas or dust, so picturing a single sphere as the occluding object is not useful. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC).

 Done - yes - agree the image may not be useful as well - and has been removed - hope this helps - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Too many names

Since Wright has unilaterally "renamed" it "Boyaijin's Star", and since that's now in the article, can we remove "WTF star"? It annoys me that this object has four different names. Meanwhile, there is a fifth name for this star commonly seen in media sources. Geogene (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Current hit count from Google News:

• "KIC 8462852" 13,600 results
• "Tabby's Star" 3,040 results
• "WTF Star" 209 results
• ""Boyajian's Star" 5 results ..... Geogene (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Geogene: FWIW - seems the usual Google-search results of the various names of the star are ranked, from most to least results, as follows: "KIC 8462852" = 341,000 Google-results; "WTF Star" = 56,200; "Tabby's Star" = 50,000; "Boyajian's Star" = 974 - seems all the names are well cited - and worthy in some regard - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:ALTNAME, four different names in the lead is excessive. We could move the rest to an etymology section, if they are in themselves notable. Otherwise, it's only important to have redirect pages at those locations. Geogene (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Another possibility is putting extra alternate names in a footnote. That way they still get reported to the reader—and get picked up by search engines—but don't get in the way of rest of the article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - added "KIC 8462852#Etymology" section - at least for starters - per "Talk:KIC 8462852#Too many names" & "WP:ALTNAME" - hope this helps - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Better, thanks. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"The Only Two Known Stars"

That sentence at the end of the introduction has a lot of problems. First, EPIC 204278916 is a "dipper" star, and it has a light curve much like the other dipper stars. Here (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.08853v2.pdf) is a collection of ten stars that have phenomenologically similar light curves. If the argument is that 204278916 has the "same" behaviour as 8462852 (which I would argue that it doesn't), then it has the same light curve as all these other ones too. Secondly, 204278916 was observed in the K2 mission, so it isn't part of the "150,000 stars monitored by Kepler." K2 has observed approximately 200,000 stars to go along with Kepler's 180,000, so we're well above 350,000 to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.135.4.192 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. I revert to the old version. This version is supported by sources: "More recently, Ansdell et al. (2016a) have found 3 YSO dippers with a wide range of inclination angles, demonstrating how edge-on disks are not a defining characteristic of dipping YSOs".. In light of this, it is not clear what make EPIC 204278916 is so special, and why we should specifically mention it?

gaia data wholly misrepresented by previous edit

ive edited to show the RANGE of the ACTUAL gaia data as opposed to the previous edit which used a personal judgement rather than the actual range values provided by the data. gaia did not give us an exact distance, we should NOT quote an actual distance because of this. a range is what is provided, and a range is what should be represented in order to remain unbiased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.20.206 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

source ref for full csv file of gaia data — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.20.206 (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

References

@Huntster: REQUESTING USER HUNSTER to discuss here regarding misleading edit to distance figures. we are not making up numbers, the data is clear. you are personally interpreting the data and therefore your edit is misleading. please, discuss here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.20.206 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

regarding the misleading quote, the way you represented the figures implies a set distance with error bars which while technically correct implies that we have a set distance which we do not. what we have based on the data is a probability range. slight but real difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.20.206 (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

FWIW - Besides User:Huntster, I'm also unclear about the exact numbers of distance ranges recently added to the "KIC 8462852" article: ie, 1139.0 to 1450.0 ly; (349.4 to 444.8 pc) - I'm unable to find those particular numbers in the reference data at the moment - any help in understanding where those particular numbers came from would be appreciated of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Exactly Drbogdan. Those numbers do not appear anywhere, whereas my figures come directly from the parallax and its error figure, using simple math to derive the parsec and light-year figures. There's nothing "implied" at all...this is a standard way of representing such things. I'm also concerned about the use of "we", above. Is this some kind of classroom project? — Huntster (t @ c) 17:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Except you have done this incorrectly. You have taken the parallax error which is the measurement precision (random error), and presented it as the total uncertainty. You must however also add to it the instrumental error (systematic error) of ~0.3 mas. This is expressly stated in the material the Gaia Team has provided;

http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/forth/aa29512-16.pdf

"The typical uncertainty for the parallaxes is 0.3 mas, where it should be noted that a systematic component of ~0.3 mas should be added "

http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dr1

"The recommendation is to consider the quoted uncertainties on the parallaxes as ±σϖ (random) ±0.3 mas (systematic)."

Be careful assuming a calculation is trivial. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

So +- 0.430 as parallax error? That would suggest 17% relative uncertainty, assuming the uncertainty is symmetric. Central value is unchanged as 391 pc = 1277 ly, and 17% uncertainty would suggest +- 67 pc, +- 215 ly uncertainty, assuming the inverse has a symmetric error (at least one assumption has to be wrong, but I don't know enough about the uncertainties to handle this properly). If the previous values are 1 sigma bands, then the Gaia measurement is less precise. --mfb (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Mfb, that was my impression as well when ChiZeroOne mentioned the 0.3 systemic uncertainty. Coupled with Jonathunder's wondering if there are any secondary sources, which I strongly doubt considering the sample size, I wonder if we should just ditch the Gaia measurement for now in favour of the previous data. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source that gives the result so we don't have to rely on original research in the calculations here? Jonathunder (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@hunster where exactly do you really think abandoning the peer reviewed scientific data is the right way to go? Just because you don't like what it says? That is the end all be all source for parallax distance measurement to the star as of this time. Period. Full stop. 2600:1:914A:24A7:9C4F:6038:791B:6127 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If it is peer reviewed scientific data then you should be easily able to produce a secondary source. Instead we have a Google Docs hosted spreadsheet of unknown authoriship, unacceptable in my opinion.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Casual Google Search noted several references - which may (or may not) be relevant to the discussion - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Thank you for your "corrections" re my "earlier edit" - at the time, I intended my edit to be a good faith improvement to my post - to better read the post - yes - agreed - my edit could be interpretable on a closer review - in any regards - Thank you *very much* for your corrections of course - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Someone writing a lot of ANGRY blog comments PARTIALLY in caps is not really a reliable source... and missing the systematic uncertainty is an error easy to make. --mfb (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Until some kind of consensus is formed, or better sourcing is available, I've reverted to the last stable data in the article. It is obvious that neither the IP's range nor a simple computed distance is desired by the editors here. I fear that the Gaia data is going to prove disruptive over time as more and more articles are updated, as not only will there be plenty of folks like myself that were unaware of the systemic bias, but others who won't be certain of how to calculate the results for our articles, as has been shown above. I'm sure there are ways to derive an acceptable figure, but just how accurate and how acceptable will those results be? — Huntster (t @ c) 20:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dimming events as avalanches - new hypothesis

PRL paper: Avalanche Statistics Identify Intrinsic Stellar Processes near Criticality in KIC 8462852

Secondary sources: physics.aps.org, spektrum.de (German) --mfb (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Consumption of a Planet?

Just to point out a new article today on arXiv: Secular Dimming of KIC 8462852 Following its Consumption of a Planet.. May be worth mentioning in the article, although it's not accepted by a peer-reviewed journal yet. (@Drbogdan) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: Thank you for your comments - yes - agreed - interesting article - *entirely* ok with me to add to the "KIC 8462852" article - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)