Talk:MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Distance[edit]

How far ist the system? 90.190.250.189 (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOA-2007-BLG-192-L b or MOA-2007-BLG-192-L[edit]

I think there is some confusion about the name of this planet. Is it MOA-2007-BLG-192-L b or MOA-2007-BLG-192-L without the b? Speaker1978 (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the star is called MOA-2007-BLG-192-L and the planet MOA-2007-BLG-192-Lb (presumably because it was the second planet discovered to orbit the star) AndrewRT(Talk) 22:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the FIRST one, planets are simply called starting from b ('a' goes for a star). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.174.178 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the discovery paper [1], the correct designation for the lens star is MOA-2007-BLG-192L (without the hyphen between 192 and L), and the designation for the planet is MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb (without a space between the L and the b). 131.111.8.96 (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOA-2007-BLG-192-L b → MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb — The discovery paper for this planet [2] renders the name as MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. —131.111.8.96 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gettin' a date[edit]

"On the night of 24 May 2007"? Can somebody clarify if it's the night 23-4 May or 24-5 May? (A small point, I know...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the night of 24-5 May. When we talk about the night on that day, it is always the time before midnight. After midnight, it is usually referred to as early morning. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that can be sourced & added, please do. Doubtless other people've wondered. (It will, of course, depend on what time the sighting was done...) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 01:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 04:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a brown dwarf?[edit]

A Jan 2009 article says the star's probably not a brown dwarf. But they were going to do some follow ups, but I don't know what the results from that are. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16439-smallest-known-exoplanet-may-actually-be-earthmass.html--Youknowandy (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's impressions and exoplanets[edit]

@Trekphiler: I removed the lead image because I don't feel that being called an "artist's impression" stops the image from being misleading. Why? Because artist's impressions are normally used to depict features of a subject that are known or reasonably believed to be true, but for which no image is available. For instance, this image of Neaderthals reflects our knowledge that Neaderthals lived in groups, wore furs, made fire, lived in subarctic climates, co-existed with mammoths, etc, etc. The appearance of the Neaderthals themselves is speculative, but at least based on some evidence. They are shown as pale-skinned since they lived in Europe, their hair is unkempt because they had no precise cutting tools. So the image depicts many accurate features of Neanderthal life, and has a few speculative elements where necessary. That is how artist's impressions are usually (and responsibly) used.

The only thing we know about MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb is that it is 1.7-8.2 times the mass of the Earth. From this, we can assume that it is spherical, and that's it. This image, however, depicts its color, albedo (and variations thereof), surface terrain, and atmosphere. None of these features are known to exist as they are depicted in this image-- they are all are completely imaginary. A reader accustomed to the normal use of artist's impressions, however, may understandably believe that we do know that at least some of these characteristics are as depicted, and that we are using an artist's impression to fill in the blanks or simply because exoplanets cannot be imaged in detail with current technology. But they would be misled, since all we know about MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb is that it is spherical.

So what images are acceptable for use on non-imaged exoplanet articles? If a size estimate is available for the exoplanet, a size comparison that does not depict the appearance of the exoplanet is great. An artist's impression that conveys only the known information that the planet is spherical, such as this one, works fine. If the exoplanet has been studied and something about it is known, then I think it is okay to use a responsibly-captioned artist's impression that depicts the known feature with some speculative features where necessary. For example, KIC 12557548 is known to lose mass rapidly, and HD 189733 b is known to be blue. But if there are no known features, I think it is contrary to the usual use of artist's impressions and therefore misleading to use a detailed and entirely imaginary image of the exoplanet.

Based on this reasoning, I will remove the image again. If you disagree and want to continue the discussion, we should notify WP:Wikiproject Astronomy of the debate so they can weigh in, since this affects a lot of articles. A2soup (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered all the implications. I'm used to artist's impressions of notional conditions, but I can appreciate the problem. Neither am I inclined to create problems elsewhere with this one edit. :) So, no objection--except to loss of a good image. :( TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for understanding :) I'm also sad to lose the nice images, but I felt that avoiding misleading readers was more important. A2soup (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't buy this. As i mentioned here Talk:Gliese_667_Cc#Image_Controversy This is nonsense look at my reasons. If other people and OFFICIAL SCIENTISTS use them Wikipedia can too. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC) - The person who wants to save the faces of planets[reply]
This is an argument from authority. Just because other people use the images does not mean that Wikipedia should too. OFFICIAL SCIENTISTS also use highly technical figures, but we generally don't put those in Wikipeida either. A2soup (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MOA-2007-BLG-192Lb&oldid=1204035952"