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.