Talk:47 Ursae Majoris c

This Article is mistaken for another
Someone has grossly mistaken 47 UMa b for 47 UMa c and vice versa. This unfortunately is common because some people believe the planet designations should be ordered from innermost outward, however in fact they are ordered by order of discovery. See: http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=47+Uma to see how the articles here on these planets have been wrongly swapped around. Exoplanet.eu is the authority on extrasolar planetary designations, so can someone please fix this? I noticed the planets are showing the wrong mass and inclination among other wrong data that is vicey versa. 75.67.80.68 (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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 2 related articles. 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.


 * 47 Ursae Majoris
 * 47 Ursae Majoris b
 * 47 Ursae Majoris c

These articles are good examples of well written articles on a short subject. They represent a comprehensive view of a relatively new observation, in a concise manner. Future additions could include images such as diagrams comparing planetary size / orbital distances, etc. If you have any questions on my rationale for promotion, please leave a message on my talk page. Phidauex 19:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

New Orbital solution
I got a new orbital solution for this planet, 47 Ursae Majoris c. This new orbital solution comes from calculating between angular distance and distance from Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia. I used a quotient of angular distance between planets b & c in 47 Ursae Majoris system. Then I multiplied the resultant orbital distance for 47 Ursae Majoris b and quotient of angular distance. Then I'll get a new preferred orbital distance (semi-major axis) of 8.181 AU and previously 3.79 AU. The orbital period of 7586 days comes directly from wikipedia article and 47 Ursae Majoris c in Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia (previously 2594 days).

Here is the equation for orbital distance: $$\ a = \theta \times D$$.

Note that the distance must be in parsecs, orbital distance in AU, and angular distance in arcseconds.

Example:$$a$$ = 0.158647 × 14.077 = 2.233, then you will find the quotient of angular distance, 0.581203 ÷ 0.158647 = 3.6635. Now you will multiply the resultant orbital distance of 47 Ursae Majoris b and angular distance quotient &mdash; 2.233 × 3.6635 = 8.181 AU for 47 Ursae Majoris c. Use your calculator to verify the result. BlueEarth 02:40, 6 May 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. 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) 09:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to Gregory and Fischer (2010)
Seems like the parameters for the planet have been revised quite a bit from the previous set quoted here: really we should take all the parameters from the same source for consistency. Anyone got access to the paper itself and can therefore obtain K, ω and Tperiastron (or some such equivalent)? Icalanise (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)