User talk:PlanetStar/Archive 4

Exoplanet designations; space or not?
I notice you're adding (back) the space on some exoplanet articles and could use your advice. I'm in the "always add a space" camp (which is closely related to the "consistency is helpful in organizing things" camp). But there are people here (only here, in my experience) that insist on removing the space. There argument is valid as far as it goes: the sources sometimes omit it. But as near as I can tell, there's not really an agreed-to standard, and the its presence or absence in any given source is mostly a matter of whim. Other experts in the field don't seem any more informed than me, and don't seem to care one way or the other. Do you know if there's a standard somewhere we could cite that would clear things up? — Aldaron • T/C 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For exoplanets orbit around stars that have traditional designations, such as HD 9446, usually have space between star designation and planet letter. The designations that use HD 9446 b and HD 9446 c are listed in The Extrasolar Planets Encylopaedia. I moved two pages that you created from HD 9446b to HD 9446 b and from HD 9446c to HD 9446 c to be consistent with all planet articles that orbit around stars that use traditional designations, such as Bayer and Flamsteed designations, and stars that use HD, HIP, HR, Gliese/GJ, and BD designations. However, most transiting and microlensing planets use special designations. Having these designations between star catalog and planet letter without a space is not a problem at all. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the pattern I've seen too, and I'm glad you moved those articles (that's how I would have named them if I hadn't been worried about starting a row with certain editors). My concern is that there have been tussles about the space in some cases where, despite the traditional designations, all the cited sources omit the space (as in the case of HD 9446), and that as it stands, Wikipedia policy would have to agree with those who argue against including it. Your reasoning for using it for planets orbiting stars with traditional designations is good and I will use it to defend "spacing" for those cases. But what about stars named "untraditionally", e.g. by survey (such as the recent Keplers or COROTs or WASPs) these seem to consistently omit the space in all original sources, with only databases such as the Encylopaedia or PlanetQuest adding it for consistency? Frankly I'd be happy with a policy that followed these databases and always included the space, since some of the stuff I contribute is made a lot easier and less time consuming to generate if I can just follow the designations in those databases. Thoughts? — Aldaron • T/C 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew when planets orbit around Bayer or Flamsteed stars, all sources use space between star designation and planet letter. For example all sources use designation as for example 51 Pegasi b, but never 51 Pegasib. For planets in binary systems, we don't use space between star designation and letter and planet letter, such as for example 30 Arietis Bb. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Update???
Hello. Here you said you updated the distance, but you just removed it. Was that intended? It's also in the text, so, if it's wrong, you would need to remove it there, too. :) Best regards, --Thogo (Talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I intended to remove dist_ly and dist_pc. Even if I removed it, there will still be a distance in starbox. The reason is that the parallax in starbox calculates the distance and that's how I update the distance. You'll see the difference that the distance was changed from 17.08 ly to 17.5 ly. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 02:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Nice! --Thogo (Talk) 09:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

COROT or CoRoT?
I find very little support anywhere outside of Wikipedia for the capitalization used here for COROT discoveries. All exoplanet databases and almost all recent papers use CoRoT rather than COROT. The closest thing to a discussion I can find here seems not to have come to any conclusion. Thoughts? If there's interest I'd propose a move from COROT to CoRoT. — Aldaron • T/C 01:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For designations of those stars and planets, both COROT and CoRoT are good, but CoRoT are more commonly used than COROT on papers. Yeah, you can move those pages if you want to agree with most papers that use CoRoT. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

BlueEarth do you know why this planet wasn't announced on the EPE?
the NEVER announced extrasolar planets by extrasolar planet encyclopaedia since august of 2009 i was check the extrasolar planet encyclopaedia (EPE) ,and there is 5 extrasolar planet that NEVER been announced…

this the scientific paper of 08/2009: http://exoplanets.org/papers/sixpack.pdf

and this is extrasolar planet catalog in alphabetic order: http://exoplanet.eu/catalog-all.php?&munit=&runit=&punit=&mode=1&more=

i send a e-mail for EPE, but they just told that the authors of this paper,don’t give the EPE the right of publicate this paper on the EPE

this is strange because this planets it’s not secret, it’s already been announced since august of 2009 on the California Planet Search http://exoplanets.org/papersframe.html

i don’t know, but for me, look like if something like that start happen in the EPE, that is the great reference in extrasolar planet of all.Now they could lose the credit of announce new exoplanets

now because of this it's supposed to have 429 planet and not 424,anyone know why,this planets it's not on EPE catalog?

the unannounced planet are: HD34445b, HD126614b, HD24496b, HD13931b, Gl179b

there is one small note on the discussion on the end of this paper that talk about of the unannounced planetary system of Gl 179 a M dwarf star ,on a recently announced planet around HIP 79431 another M dwarf star with a gas giant planet see at:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1001/1001.1174v1.pdf

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Extrasolar_planet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.10.176 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the authors for this paper completely forgot to tell Jean Schneider to add five new planets to the list and a paper in bibliography. But however, there are specific pages in EPE about those five planet. Maybe that's a mystery why there are pages but not listed. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

that is really strange indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.37.108 (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Exoplanets
Hey there, I see you've improved greatly the details of the exoplanets and some stars that I made. Just wanted to ask if you need help building them? Maybe we could collaborate on the said project? --TitanOne (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You see that I added starbox in HD 156668 article and planetbox in HIP 79431 b article. I just created the article HIP 79431 today. If you want, you can expand that article. Also do you want to create the articles HD 129445, HD 129445 b, HD 152079, HD 152079 b, HD 164604, HD 164604 b, HD 175167, HD 175167 b, HD 86226, and HD 86226 b with just paragraphs while I'll add starbox and planetbox. But for HD 86226 article, you copypasted directly from HD 156668, so you need to work on changing the article into this topic. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, I'll start working on a few in the next few days. As for the HD 86226, I think that was an error in pasting from my remote sandbox. Will edit that later. --TitanOne (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed HD 86226 though only a limited number of inline citations are available online. Also I did some expansion for Magellan Planet Search Program. --TitanOne (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm done creating those articles without any paragraphs for you to work on. These articles have starbox, orbitbox, planetbox, list of related links, reference, sky coordinates, and categories. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll start them slowly later and work through them over the coming week.--TitanOne (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

News on WASP-12b
Hi, BlueEarth! I believe that the following news could be of some interest to you, although I cannot be sure if it is worth including it in the corresponding article about WASP-12b: Torn apart by its own tides, massive planet is on a 'death march' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmronchi (talk • contribs) 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncertainty values
Hello, if you are going to add a whole load of derived quantities (e.g. periastron/apastron distances) and alternate units values to infoboxes, can you please also remember to add the associated uncertainty values on these quantities. Thanks, Icalanise (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added uncertainty values for periastron and apastron distances, tildes before alternative units, and a note on alternative planet designations as they are taken from alternative star designations. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 02:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Removing alternative planet designations
Yes I am aware how the extrasolar planet names are formed. However the question is "has anyone actually used this designation for the planet". If you can't find it in use, it probably doesn't belong in the article. The note to explain how they were derived basically boils down to "how BlueEarth made up a bunch of designations that no-one uses". That is why I removed them. Icalanise (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ununseptium
Hi you added the fact that Ununseptium has been discovered is there any credible source for this ? Please join the discussion at Talk:Ununseptium.--Stone (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbiquadium
Do you know yet if that claim is true? The article for unbiquadium still says that it has been discovered. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 19:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that this element was synthesized in 2008 with a half-life of one quintillionth of a second undergoing nuclear fission. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do some research to see if I can find any other sources to be sure of it. --Ferocious Flying Ferrets 01:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of HD 177830 c


The article HD 177830 c has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * There appears to be no evidence this planet exists or that the designation HD 177830 c has been used for an actual extrasolar planet. The given references do not mention it, nor does a Google search turn up much more than mirrors of this Wikipedia article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Icalanise (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually seen HD 177830 c in Planets list in Catalog of Nearby Exoplanets that is now moved to Exoplanet Data Explorer. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Making up extrasolar planet parameters
Hello, I came across the article on HD 47536 c, which referred to a "speculated eccentricity". Taking a look through the history of HD 47536, I came across this edit, where it looks like you decided to make up an eccentricity value to fill in the missing data. Please do not do this! At best this is original research, at worst it is pure fiction. Icalanise (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Extrasolar moon nomenclature
Wait wait wait! If I understand this right, you inserted this speculation of Roman numerals into the Wikipedia article here as unsourced speculation, it then evolved a bit until it got to this state at which point the article was mirrored at this website, and then you go and use the mirror to justify reinserting your original speculations... Icalanise (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Template problem
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_876_e

Hi. Somebody edited a part of the templates data and now all the borders are gone. Can you look it at? Quantanew (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues of the templates. I could see that every templates in that article have borders. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Buehrle's perfect game
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen on the archive from 1:00am on July 29, but there were only 521 views as of July 26 since that quick check site is out of date and will be updated soon. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Attention: "Quadrant (astronomy)"
The article have no viable sources, and seems to be a WP:SYNTH on one external source. The article could be viable, but not by the current sources. Refer to Talk:Quadrant (astronomy)! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also see Talk:Constellation_Family: the topic is spurious. And note that I removed the constellation family slot in the Template:Infobox constellation: the notability of the concept Constellation Family is not yet established and I'm not sure that such a notability can be established, since the subdivision is arbitrary and can be traced back to one source only. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark Buehrle's perfect game
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mark Buehrle's perfect game, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

fyi I'm not the one that nominated the article. What a headache..

Articles for deletion nomination of Cold Neptune
I have nominated Cold Neptune, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Cold Neptune. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Icalanise (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Coordinate transformations
I answered to your question here. Icek (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the exoplanet north pole calculations, the formulas won't be as simple as yours: In the equatorial system of the planet itself we have of course $$\theta_0 = 90^\circ$$

$$\phi_0 = undefined$$

In the system in the exoplanet's orbital plane with the exoplanet's vernal equinox as a zero point we have

$$\theta_1 = 90^\circ - \epsilon$$

$$\phi_1 = 270^\circ$$

In the system in the same plane but with the ascending node as the zero point it is

$$\theta_2 = 90^\circ - \epsilon$$

$$\phi_2 = 270^\circ - \gamma$$

Then we need to tilt the system to a plane perpendicular to the line connecting the observer on Earth and the exoplanet:

$$sin(\theta_3) = cos(\epsilon) \cdot cos(i) \mp sin(\epsilon) \cdot cos(\gamma) \cdot sin(i)$$

$$cos(\phi_3) = -sin(\epsilon) \cdot sin(\gamma)$$

In the next step we rotate the system so that the zero point is at north instead of $$\Omega$$ (because $$\Omega$$ is relative to the celestial north):

$$\theta_4 = \theta_3$$

$$\phi_4 = \phi_3 - \Omega$$

Now we want to tilt the system to Earth's equatorial plane. But wait, we cannot do this with our tilting operation, because the axis that we tilt about goes through the zero point of the $$\phi$$ angle, and we don't want to tilt about a north-south line tangential to the celestial sphere at the position of the star, but about a east-west line, so we have to rotate in-plane before we tilt:

$$\theta_5 = \theta_4$$

$$\phi_5 = \phi_4 + 90^\circ$$

Now we tilt:

$$sin(\theta_6) = sin(\theta_5) \cdot sin(\delta) \pm cos(\theta_5) \cdot sin(\phi_5)$$

$$cos(\phi_6) = cos(\theta_5) \cdot cos(\phi_5)$$

Now all that's left is rotating the system in-plane to the proper orientation - because the zero point for $$\phi_6$$ is at $$\alpha - 90^\circ$$:

$$\delta_{NP} = \theta_7 = \theta_6$$

$$\alpha_{NP} = \phi_7 = \phi_6 - \alpha + 90^\circ$$

What remains to be determined is:
 * which of the 2 possible angles to choose for the $$\phi$$ when only the cosine is given (for the $$\theta$$ the sine will be given and it's obviously always the angle between -90° and 90°):
 * If the tilting angle (in our two cases they are $$i$$ and $$90^\circ - \delta$$) is less that 90° - then the new $$\phi$$ will be between 0° and 180° whenever the old $$\phi$$ is and between 180° and 360° whenever the old $$\phi$$ is; if the tilting angle is more than 90°, the ranges are swapped.


 * whether to take the minus or plus sign at the tilting operations:
 * in the case of the tilting from the planet's orbital plane to the plane tangential to the celestial sphere I am now not totally sure about the conventions - if at the ascending node the planet away from Earth and the planet's revolution is clockwise as seen from Earth at small positive $$i$$ then the plus sign should apply (i.e. the new north pole in the old coordinate system has a $$\phi$$ of 90° rather than 270°; and in the formula I wrote down above, the minus sign applies, because plus and minus were swapped due to a simplification of the terms).
 * In the case of the tilting from the plane tangential to the celestial sphere to Earth's equatorial plane, the plus sign should apply.

Icek (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And you could easily write this into one large formula I think, but I don't think you can simplify the arcsines of sums etc. much. Icek (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I started a discussion at Talk:Mark Buehrle's perfect game about the merit of play-by-plays in perfect game articles. ~  EDDY  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI 2.0
Roy Halladay did not throw 2 no hitters in one season. He threw one in the 2010 season and one in the 2010 postseason. The same way someone with 50 regular season home runs and 3 postseason home runs did not hit 53 home runs that season, they are separate environments with separate stats, records, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I get it now, only for regular season stats, uhh. So I conclude that regular season and postseason are parts of the major league baseball season. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 01:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. But absolutely nowhere are the stats for the two combined. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Boston Red Sox no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of San Francisco Giants no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Los Angeles Dodgers no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Detroit Tigers no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Chicago Cubs no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Atlanta Braves no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Minnesota Twins no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Oakland Athletics no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Baltimore Orioles no-hitters
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hank Severeid?
Hello, BlueEarth. Thank you for your List of Cincinnati Reds no-hitters. However, I doubt a six-year-old Hank Severeid would be catching Breitenstein's no-hitter. Severeid was an active catcher for the Reds from 1911 to 1913, so I don't think he caught any of the no-hitters on the list (unless the dates on your list are wrong). Could you put in the name of the actual catchers, please? I don't have the refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting to fix. Severeid was not on the Reds roster in the 1917 Cincinnati Reds season nor the 1919 Cincinnati Reds season.  I'm guessing that Ivey Wingo caught the no-hitters in 1917 & 1919.  But I have no refs.  Please fix if you have the refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for fixing this. List of Cincinnati Reds no-hitters is DYK'd on MainPage now. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of St. Louis Cardinals no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Pittsburgh Pirates no-hitters
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Cleveland Indians no-hitters
Gatoclass (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of Cincinnati Reds no-hitters
Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)