Talk:HD 11964

Merger proposal

In Wright et al. (2008), it is noted that the 360-day planet HD 11964 d was not detected in re-reduced data. The planet may thus be regarded as disproven, and therefore devoting an entire article to it is perhaps giving too much attention to it. Icalanise (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm might say that we should keep this article as this article has plenty of info about the orbit, mass, and detection. I think that any planets detected with periods between 360-370 days would take up to few years for planets to be confirmed or retracted because these planets have periods very similar to Earth's 365 day-period in a year. I read the abstract A Bayesian periodogram finds evidence for three planets in HD 11964 by Gregory et al. and say that it is at least 600 times more likely that there is a 360-day period planet than having just two planets. Here's a question: Was this planet confirmed before it became disproved by Wright et al. on December 8, 2008? I'll might say that it is about 70% likely that this planet does exist. But HD 11964 d was the only planet to have period between 360 to 370 days, but the planet HD 17092 b with a period of 359.9 days is very close to the range and very similar to HD 11964 d, was quickly confirmed. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet d was never on the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia's confirmed list (nor was it even on their unconfirmed list), nor was it ever listed in the Catalog of Nearby Exoplanets. Icalanise (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment to add here: the Gregory (2006) paper states that a 3-Keplerians model is preferred over a 2-Keplerians model by a factor of 600, but this does not mean that the motion is associated with HD 11964: it could be 2 planets around HD 11964 plus the Earth's orbital motion (hence their comments about the barycentric correction). In Wright et al. (2008), they are working on re-reduced data for this system (i.e. starting from the raw velocities and doing the corrections for the Earth's motion all over again), and do not see the 360-day planet, which suggests the original supposition that the 360-day "planet" was in fact a false detection. Sure, there's plenty of info, but none of it is thought to relate to a real object, so it comes down to whether HD 11964 d is notable as a disproven planet. Icalanise (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence against the notability of HD 11964 d: as well as not having been included in the EPE or CNE, according to NASA ADS the discovery paper is only cited by 3 papers [1], and only 1 of those actually discusses the 360-day planet rather than the general Bayesian technique: Wright et al. (2008), i.e. the paper which states there is no evidence for it in the re-reduced data. Icalanise (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

support merge - an unconfirmed planet is not notable enough for a seperate article. Also, much of the data in the infobox appears to be speculative. --mikeu ^talk 18:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet designations

The designations of the planets in this system have been reversed: the discovery paper [2] designates the ~2000-day planet as "b", and a review of the system recently published to arXiv [3] notes that the correct designations are "b" for the outer planet and "c" for the inner planet, with the reversed situation being an error. I've requested an admin swaps the HD 11964 b and HD 11964 c articles to get those fixed (see WP:RM), after which I'll fix the article tables. (Note that the statement about HD 11964 c being confirmed later is correct under the correct designation system that makes c the inner planet). Icalanise (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]