The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Merged. Content in HD 1461 d and HD 1461 e duplicated material already in this article, and HD 1461 c was inaccurate due to confusion between Rivera et al. (2010) and Mayor et al. (arXiv 2011) solutions. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I propose that the articles HD 1461 c, HD 1461 d and HD 1461 e are merged into this article. In the case of HD 1461 c, the planet is only attested from a single table of a pre-print that has so far not been published in a refereed journal in the 3 years since it appeared on the arXiv. In the caes of HD 1461 d and HD 1461 e, the planets at the relevant orbital periods were never confirmed and in fact were originally referred-to as "HD 1461 c" and "HD 1461 d", so that using "d" and "e" is in fact making up nomenclature. Simply adding together the planet candidates from two orbital fits using different data sets is generally not a valid operation, and in any case these unconfirmed candidates do not seem to have received any attention in the literature since publication. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
What about the recent mentions on the articles listed here? — Aldaron • T/C 00:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not proposing a merge of the HD 1461 b article. That planet is fairly well-attested. In any case, a large proportion of those papers deal with the host star properties and don't really deal with the planets themselves, beyond the fact that the star is selected for study because it has one or more planets. Some of them don't even mention HD 1461 at all. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have just modified one external link on HD 1461. 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.
You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.
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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.