Talk:Teegarden's Star

Teegarden
Who is Teegarden? Can something about him be added to this article? -- llywrch 23:16, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Teegarden is the discoverer of the star. Information about him can be found at Bonnard J. Teegarden -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

HPMS
I got redirected to this page from HPMS. HPMS refers form me to the U.S. Highway Performance Monitoring System. Would an article on this system be appropriate for wikipedia? -- June 2006
 * HPMS is now a disambiguation page. "HPMS" refers to "high proper motion star". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Move (2010)
Needed to Teegarden's Star, correct capitalisation. Rothorpe (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Most participants oppose the move.  Sandstein  12:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Teegarden& → SO J025300.5+165258 – No reliable source uses this name to refer to article subject. IAU policy is specifically aginst using names of this type to refer to extrasolar bodies (e.g. ) As such this is a neologism and unsuitable as article title. 87.114.24.122 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The star was only discovered in 2003, so whatever else it is, any label attached to this star is a neologism since it is only 10 years old, so therefore new. Several Google Scholar results use the term "Teegarden's Star" more than for "SO J025300.5+165258" or variant, including ApJ and AAS. Are you saying that neither ApJ nor AAS are reliable sources? bgc shows a preference for "Teegarden's Star" (several hits) over SO... (0 hits); and plain google search  also shows an extreme preponderance in favor of the current name. SIMBAD doesn't even use your proposed name, it uses "2MASS J02530084+1652532", which lists "Teegarden's Star" as an alternate name. So, are you also contending that SIMBAD isn't an RS either? Further your linked to page is for the sale of naming of star services, completely unrelated to the naming of this star. I suppose next you'll point out Barnard's Star for renaming? Or Cor Caroli? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Where used it is clear this is only being used in a descriptive rather than definitive tone. As noted in the original suggestion the IAU does not grant names to bodies outside the solar system and they are the recognised body in this regard.  The "counterargument" is invalid since the examples given are grandfathered under the current position.  In that respect arguing for the current name is arguing for IAU nomenclature in some cases but against it in others. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. --JorisvS (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Google hit counts are not acceptable as sources so COMMONNAME needs a more robust defense than has been presented - even a quick look through the "hits" reported by Google show that many of them are in fact complete misses once you get off the first page. RS's consulted only ever use the word form in a descriptive sense in conjunction with a catalog number.  IAU policy is clearcut and  seems to make clear that "Teegarden's Star" is at best an informal designation with far from universal recognition. 3142 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose The common name for this star is well known both inside and outside the astronomy community for several good reasons: who found the star - an astrophysicist; where the star was found - in old asteroid survey data; how it was found - by data mining; and the discovery by a group that did not include any astronomers at the time. Popular media made much of the discovery because the of the claim that it was one of the closest star systems found in the last few decades. Although the IAU may not recognize the common name, the noted astronomer George Gatewood did when he published the now accepted distance measurement in The Astronomical Journal and this is about as WP:RS as there is. Well, I guess we could move it to a modern (and meaningless) catalog number, if we also intend to move Barnard's star, Kapteyn's star, Wolf359, etc. Aldebaran66 (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as above, common name. Prefer words to number-letter gobbledygook. Rothorpe (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

ref SIMBAD
There's a problem with this article, it uses the reference "SIMBAD" in two paragraphs as the only reference, making claims not found in the source material.

For example, the article says that this star can only be seen with a telescope. While this is true, this is not mentioned in the source, which only lists magnitude. This would be a WP:SYN violation, since we are synthesizing information not found in the source, since the source makes no claims on what instruments are needed to view this star. And I don't even see Only seven stars with such large proper motions are currently known in the source reference at all (if I need to do a different query, a parameter query on proper motion on SIMBAD to find the data, then it's not the proper source reference.) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, the only reference made to the claim of this being a brown dwarf is SIMBAD. But the cited mass makes it equally likely to be a fusor. Praemonitus (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move the page as requested at this time, per the discussion below and the concurrent discussion at Talk:Teegarden's Star. Dekimasu よ! 02:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Teegarden's star → Teegarden's Star – In the entire article, it is referred to as Teegarden's Star, and, much like Luyten's Star and Kapteyn's Star it is the proper name of the star. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Compare also Barnard's Star, which is a featured article. "Star" should be upper case when part of a proper name. However, our List of stars named after people does have a few others where "star" is lower case. These should also be examined. Jonathunder (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not move? THis sounds sensible, and I would have moved it on request or without discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I need an admin to move it, as Teegarden's Star is already an article. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, per above nom and comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia has a WP:TITLECAPS policy, which basically hinges around whether the title is a proper name or a "description". I couldn't find any formal discussion of the subject in the similar linked articles, although that could be taken as consensus that they are fine the way they are.  Journal papers seem to be split about 50:50 on caps or sentence case, so there is certainly a cohort that treats it as a descriptive title although these are mostly physical scientists and not English literature grads.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See also Romano's star. Lithopsian (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Planet Sizes
Sorry, this is the first time I'm participating. Please let me know if there is a better way for discussing things.

I recently changed the entries for the planet's mass to (what I assume) the latest values. For instance directly from the NASA website. https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanet-catalog/teegardens-star-b

Why was this reverted? What have I missed. Does anyone have better data I don't have? ElChicoGordo (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The masses on that NASA website are from the 2019 discovery paper, while the masses in the article are from this 2024 paper. The 2024 paper is also used as the default parameter source in the NASA Exoplanet Archive, which that website uses as its data source - so something's not right, it seems like the website is no longer kept in sync with the database. It might be because the website was recently redesigned. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)