Talk:TW Hydrae b

Dubious "revival"
Dear MarioProtIV, The putative 22-au planet is *never* named in Tsukagoshi et al. (2016)'s article, and one can be very doubtful about naming it "TW Hydrae b" given that one (finally disproven) planet was already named that way. E.g., exoplanet.eu keeps using this name to refer to the "controversial" (disproven?) planet. Exoplanet.eu also uses "TW Hya c" to refer to a potential planet at 80 au (actually also unnamed in Debes et al. 2013). It is therefore hight doubtful that the new planet be named "TW Hya b". SenseiAC (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I sort of disagree, the previous "b" planet was disproven and others were claimed to exist but not confirmed. With this recent discovery which very likely indicates a planet is there, e.g essentially confirmed. Even though it hasn't been named in the paper, per the naming scheme I think is appropriate to consider this TW Hydrae b. That's why I had added a "disproven status" from the 2007/2008 "discovery" of the planet (with different properties) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * MarioProtIV : Whatever "you think", it's not you who choose the name of this planet. This 22-au planet is not confirmed, not more confirmed than the 80-au one, nor the 1-au one. This planet is moreover completely unrelated to the 2007/8 proposed planet. In addition to that, the fact is that this planet (that was already suggested by other authors last year, by the way) has not any name, wherever you can look on the internet. Therefore, naming it "TW Hya b" is (a) doubtful and (b) purely "original research". Give me any proof that the planet is named this way and you can call it this way. Before that, using this designation is pure speculation, even more given the above mentioned element (the EPE seems to be alone to refer to a "TW Hya c", but many websites deal with "TW Hya b" and they all refer to the "demoted" planet when they use this name). Using the same designation for completely unrelated objects — even if one was proved not to exist — is a very dangerous idea, especially for bibliographic reasons. SenseiAC (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How about rename to "TW Hydrae's candidate planet"? Kinda odd name for a exoplanet page but because of no name being mentioned, this may be the only option. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * MarioProtIV, I would suggest to use a plural if you want to deal with the different planets: you currently deal with already two planets, so for me it would only make sense to do so if you'd also deal with the other candidates on the same page. Otherwise, you should create one page per candidate (+ one about the disproven one, or keep it for the TW Hydrae system/star page, but for sure it makes no sense to deal with it in the page of one specific candidate), but for me it does not really make sense for the moment given that their existence is not so confident yet and their parameters are therefore even less certain. In the French side, I think that, for the moment, I will keep dealing with the planet candidates and the disk in the TW Hydrae system page. SenseiAC (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So basically all the candidates on one page? It could go in the discovery section in the order of the 2007/2008, then the 2013 one, then the recently new proposal/likely planet? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)