Talk:82 G. Eridani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 82 G. Eridani is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Debris disk[edit]

Several sources suggest this star has an infrared excess, which may indicate a debris disk. However, beyond that I haven't found much data.—RJH (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Planetary system[edit]

3 planets it's been found around HD20794 (82 Eridani): The HARPS search for Earth-like planets in the habitable zone: I -- Very low-mass planets around HD20794, HD85512 and HD192310 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research?[edit]

Has luminosity value been reported in a journal or other reliable published source? If so, use the published value and cite the publication. I don't think it's necessarily good practice to add original research by doing calculations and entering them into WP articles. AstroCog (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say...
where L is luminosity, R is radius and Teff

is not a reference, even if the formula is known, the unpublished results makes it original research. (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me be clearer, the L=0.62 is all that is necessary even if the figure comes from a paper that illustrates the calculation with a formula. (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is preferred practice to use a value from a published source. If that is not available and there's a consensus to use a calculation (per WP:CALC), then I'd like to recommend putting in a cite for the formula and show the calculation. That way we know what numbers you used, and we can change the result when the estimates are revised. For example:
Hmm, it's a different result. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

82 G. Eridani82 Eridani – In my experience this star is usually termed "82 Eridani" rather than the more pedantic "82 G. Eridani". To me the insistence on the "G." form seems quite odd. Certainly SIMBAD lists it as "82 Eri" and the references list there contains papers using "82 Eri" or "82 Eridani" in the title and none with the "G." form. [1] Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


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 policy on article titles.
  • Weak Oppose it's not a Flamsteed designation. (If it were, it wouldn't have the "G.", which indicates that it isn't) It is a Gould designation. -- (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    • True but in practice the two systems seem to have merged (at least in this case), and while the G. may be more correct, Wikipedia prefers general usage to correctness. (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


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.

Are some planets in the habitable zone?[edit]

The article never makes this clear. One scientist speculating about a 5% chance does not represent scientific consensus, nor is it very clear. Is it within the generally theorized habitable zone or not? If not, is it in the theorized border range of a habitable planet? If so what are the specifics? Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)