Talk:Kepler-70

planet names
http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/keplerinthenews/index.cfm?fuseaction=ShowNews&NewsID=178 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7378/full/nature10631.html

designations are KOI-55.01 and KOI-55.02, NOT KOI-55 b and KOI-55 c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.30.246 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The letter suffixes probably came from the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia entry. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That website has known limitations in the way it handles designations. They probably can't get it to do KOI-55.01. It lists incorrect lettering for the pulsar planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.30.246 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct designations, corresponding to the standard of naming exoplanets, are KOI-55 b and KOI-55 c. (Exoplanets are always named with the designation of the star plus a small letter, starting with b). KOI-55.01 and KOI-55.02 seem to be internal Kepler designations (maybe because it's easier to handle numbers than letters). For some reasons, Charpinet et al. used these designations in their paper instead of the standard ones. They also use a different name for the planets (KOI-55...) and for the star (KIC 05807616), which is also highly confusing. --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the log run that's true, but I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of assigning planet names based on this standard. We'll need to wait until those designations are used in the literature. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are rules for naming exoplanets (an extension of the WMC standard for multiple-star systems adopted by the IAU), and in my opinion Wikipedia should adhere to these rules, just as SIMBAD or the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia do. It seems that Charpinet et al. usually work on asteroseismology, so they may not have been familiar with the nomenclature of exoplanets. From the literature it is hard to tell. From the 16 papers citing the Charpinet et al. paper on ADS, only three use the name of the planets, one as KOI-55.01/02, one as KOI-55 b/c, and one as Kepler 55b. By the way, Charpinet et al. call the star KIC 05807616 throughout their paper, nevertheless it is called KOI-55 in the Wikipedia article. Regards, --Luftschiffhafen (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest discussing this at the WP:ASTRO talk page since the topic is more general than just this article. WP:PLANETNAMES isn't specific on the point of numerical identifiers. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it possible that "Kepler 70d" might be a satellite of Kepler 70b?

203.114.146.141 (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)User Calibanu

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kepler-70. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119020901/http://exoplanet.eu/planet.php?p1=KOI-55&p2=b to http://exoplanet.eu/planet.php?p1=KOI-55&p2=b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Planetary system
The 2015 paper "Planetary candidates around the pulsating sdB star KIC 5807616 considered doubtful" and the 2019 paper "Analysis of putative exoplanetary signatures found in light curves of two sdBV stars observed by Kepler" (published in Astronomy and Astrophysics) cast doubt on the existence of the Kepler-70 exoplanets. The authors of the latter paper state (among other things):

"we performed this test on the F 1 and F 2 sig- nals that were observed in KIC 5807616 sdBV. Both signals have larger frequency variations than expected from the exoplanetary origin. After a careful study, we classified the F 1 and F 2 fre- quencies as resulting from a beating of intermediate-amplitude pulsating g modes."

I would like to edit this page (and the Kepler-70/70c/Subdwarf-B pages) to cite these papers and to add a note saying something like "Recent research has suggested that the Kepler-70 exoplanets may not exist, and that the apparent variations in brightness can be explained through other means".

I'm not a professional astronomer and don't know if counter-arguments to those in the papers exist, so I thought I'd post on the talk pages first and see what other editors thought. However, after looking things up further, authors including Ulrich Heber have cited the 2015 paper in their work and appear to find its arguments convincing, so I'm planning on making the edit anyway. I'm still posting on the talk page, though, as you can see!

(I'm posting near-identical messages to this one on the other three relevant talk pages. I hope it doesn't trigger any sort of automated spam-detection.)

Someone else pointed me to the 2019 paper during a Stack Exchange discussion; I don't normally keep up with this research, and hadn't known about the 2015 paper until today either.

AstridRedfern (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The existence of Kepler-70b and Kepler-70c is doubtful (see the references in the above section), and those articles have mostly the same information as this one. At worst, these articles misinform readers - the claim that Kepler-70b is the hottest known exoplanet is often added to other articles. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)