Talk:PSR B1620−26 b

PSR B1620−26 b has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 9, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 23, 2009	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Methuselah

If "Methuselah" is the planet's "nickname", what is the actual name? -- Wondering simply, Infrogmation 20:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the current official designation would be PSR B1620-26 b. -- 212.127.141.173 00:15 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Evolutionary history

The evolutionary history is an 'educated guess'. A google search for "site:arxiv.org PSR B1620-26" or something similar and browsing through the dozens of articles popping up might help in refining the details. But grammar and spelling need revision (I'm not a native English speaker).

-- Caid Raspa 10:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Article location

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As 'Methuselah' is an unofficial nickname, I think this article would be better placed at PSR B1620-26 C, which is the official designation. Any objections to it being moved? Worldtraveller 16:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:RM

Talk:PSR B1620-26c : PSR B1620-26c → Methuselah (planet) — because Methuselah is the common name, and the one the press uses. 132.205.15.43 03:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
COMMENT there are several designations for a star, but the nickname is probably the easiest one to use for the planet. 132.205.15.43 04:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: Talk:PSR B1620-26c+Talk:51 Pegasi B+Talk:Tau Boötis Ab+Talk:Osiris (planet)+Talk:70 Virginis b — these are the planets where we should come up with a consistent naming convention for. 132.205.15.43 05:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Extrasolar_Planets 132.205.15.43 05:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose this move, for reasons I've outlined at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects#Extrasolar_Planets Worldtraveller 12:44, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 22:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Sundman

How can the planet PSR B1620-26c remain in stable orbit around two stars for a mere day? There is definitely no computable analytical solution for the generic three body problem. That planet must have propulsion to keep its orbit or it would crash or fly off! Maybe it's the planet described in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris SF novel?

The above comment by user:195.70.48.242 at 10:53, 4 May 2005

How can there exist a trinary star? (ie. Alpha Centauri), wouldn't that third star have a propulsion system to keep its orbit, or it would crash or fly off! Obviously, since we can have triple star systems, we can have a planet orbit two stars, especially in a wide orbit around a close binary. Talking about three-body problems, here in the Solar System, we have 8 planets, why don't they all crash into each other or fly off then? Or rather, consider the asteroid belt, where orbits are closer together... But we live in a galaxy, and there are millions of star around us... that's not a three-body problem either... 132.205.44.128 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review needed

This article received its Good Article rating on 9 March 2006 from an editor who hearkened back to a kinder, gentler era when it was not outside of norms to just simply plonk down a Good Article tag for no other reason than WP:ILIKEIT. Alas, the standards for retaining this pretty green trinket have tightened over time; in the present regime, someone unassociated with writing this article (a reviewer) should examine the article with respect to the good article criteria and, on the various standards cited, expresses up, down, or neutral sentiments, plus an aggregate sentiment, upon which retaining the pretty little trinket relies.

By posting this remark here, I'm not suggesting that the article has gone bad or presently fails the criteria, but I am noting the absence of a review that is a hallmark of the present process, and, in the fullness of time, a review should be performed on this article. With the absence of a review, this article is a delisting candidate. Note that, for an editor to delist this article, the due-diligence of a good article review is required. Otherwise, how might a delisting editor justify his or her delisting, or offer cogent reasons why the Good Article mark should remain? In either case, anything short of a fair review is unfair to editors who contribute to this article regularly and in good faith. Drop any questions about this on my talk page. Take care — Gosgood 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to PSR B1620-26 b

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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below, and lacking any sources cited for the "c" designation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC) While the scientific papers dealing with this object avoid the designation issue, the SIMBAD astronomical database lists this object as "PSR B1620-26 b" [1]: the "c" designation produces an error when you try to look it up [2]. Since SIMBAD is pretty much the official go-to source for astronomical designations, we should follow that rather than use an unofficial designation. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your search is wrong. The correct title is PSR 1620-26 c, that does come up with results on SIMBAD. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you provide the link to the SIMBAD search which comes up with results for the "c" designation? My attempts:

Query string: "PSR B1620-26 c" - Identifier not found in the database - [3]

Query string: "PSR 1620-26 c" - Identifier not found in the database - [4]

Query string: "PSR B1620-26c" - Identifier not found in the database - [5]

Query string: "PSR 1620-26c" - Identifier not found in the database - [6]

Query string: "PSR B1620-26 b" - Extra-solar planet candidate - [7]

Query string: "PSR 1620-26 b" - Extra-solar planet candidate - [8]

Query string: "PSR B1620-26b" - Extra-solar planet candidate - [9]

Query string: "PSR 1620-26b" - Extra-solar planet candidate - [10]

How exactly is my search wrong??? 86.171.72.213 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 99% of the Google Scholar hits calls this the "PSR B1620-26 planet" 70.55.85.122 (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia also use PSR B1620-26 b! BlueEarth (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME, at minimum. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. The last section would benefit with more sourcing, especially for some of the claims. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest planet?

Since there have been many years since the confirmation of the planet and its age, several stars with planets have been discovered which are older than PSR B1620-26 b. The competitors of the oldest planets orbit around stars Rho Indi, HD 142022 A and HD 164922. Can someone confirm if any planets around those stars are as old as their host star? --Artman40 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on PSR B1620-26 b. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PSR B1620-26 b. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219075138/http://thebookofbeginnings.com/sources/10/PrimevalPlanet.pdf to http://thebookofbeginnings.com/sources/10/PrimevalPlanet.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PSR B1620-26 b Planet

Oldest planet in our universe,age-13 billion, wow amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok haldar (talk • contribs) 10:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]