Talk:Wolf 1061

Reference links
Neither of the reference links for this star work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.74.214 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong star
In last March,  added information about a newly-discovered planetary system around Wolf 1061.

Except &hellip; I think this is the wrong star.

Earlier today, someone editing from an anonymous IP address deleted the section on the newly-discovered planetary system, which triggered an automatic tag designed to detect vandalism; with no edit summary to explain the deletion, it looked very much like the hundred or more such cases of random deletions that occur every day, and I reverted the change, restoring the section. But after checking on the details of the discovery, it seems that the deletion was appropriate. The new planets were discovered around GJ 682 ; Wolf 1061 is GJ 628, with the last two digits transposed. So that's one “oops” for Astre and one for me. I've deleted the mistaken section (again).

Unician &nabla; 09:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_1061c

74.216.14.113 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

BY Dra variable
According to this source,† Wolf 1061 is a BY Draconis variable with a variability of 10.050−10.100 in magnitude. I'm unclear why this doesn't match the information from Wright et al. Praemonitus (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, such is life. BY Dra variables are small-amplitude variables where surface irregularities (eg. starspots) change the brightness of the star as it rotates. Wright et al. did not examine photometry. Instead they "ruled out" implicit variability of the star by looking for radial velocity variations in the spectrum. To be fair, they weren't really interested in whether it was photometrically variable, only on whether the star pulsated which would mimic or obscure radial velocity variations from planets. So there isn't really a contradiction. The classification as BY Dra-type is based almost entirely on a single paper that established that there were small-amplitude variations, but went no further. Lithopsian (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, such is life. BY Dra variables are small-amplitude variables where surface irregularities (eg. starspots) change the brightness of the star as it rotates. Wright et al. did not examine photometry. Instead they "ruled out" implicit variability of the star by looking for radial velocity variations in the spectrum. To be fair, they weren't really interested in whether it was photometrically variable, only on whether the star pulsated which would mimic or obscure radial velocity variations from planets. So there isn't really a contradiction. The classification as BY Dra-type is based almost entirely on a single paper that established that there were small-amplitude variations, but went no further. Lithopsian (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistencies
The lead gives the rotational period as both most likely longer than 100 days and 89.3±1.8~ days. According to the lead, the habitable zone lies between 0.11-0.21 AU and 0.09–0.23 AU. According to the planetary system section, it extends from approximately 0.073 to 0.190 AU. The latter is a very significant difference, as one planet is either in the zone or not depending on which is correct.--Klausok (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The planetary system section's habitable zone of 0.073 to 0.190 AU habitable zone was calculated using older data based on the star's temperature and luminosity, via the Habitable Zone Calculator hosted by the University of Washington site (http://depts.washington.edu/naivpl/sites/default/files/hz.shtml). If you feed the newer data for temperature and luminosity for the star, an updated temperature of 3342K and an updated luminosity of 0.0102, which is the same data used in the paper quoted for the habitable zone in the lead of this article, you then calculate a habitable zone that extends approximately from 0.105 to 0.205 AU and that is much more similar to the boundaries defined in the lead to this article. So, Wolf 1061 c is very near, but not quite within, the habitable zone boundaries and therefore is probably too hot to be a habitable planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.82.221 (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)