User talk:PlanetStar/Archive 2

"Planetary *HUMAN* Habitability" page is needed

I see you have a good eye for the lacking. Perhaps you would like to work on an article page that fills the gap of HUMAN habitablility on planets, as there is a gap creating arguments on what is a habitable planet were too many people are wasting time debating the issuse by refering to planetary habitabily when they mean planetary HUMAN habitiability. We would need to find links to current research, future reseach, and published articles on human tolerance to such things as the range of Gravity, Atmosphere pressure, Partial Pressure of Gases, Insolation and surface temperatures, etc. Please let me know if this interests you...? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Planetary HUMAN Habitability page is needed

The planetary habitability article is about the conditions needed to support complex life including intelligent life such as humans. I knew that human life in our galaxy is probably very rare. In order to support human life, the Earth-like planets must have at least one large "lucky" moon. The atmospheric pressure, partial pressures of gases, surface temperature, pull of gravity, insolation, and climate must be right for humans. It is about 60% interesting about conditions supporting human life. BlueEarth (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

60% interesting, what does that mean?
I don't know how to start articles yet or I would start this one, making a clear distinction, but I see that you have opened templates for a lot of things.
You should know what is 60% intersting means, means not completely or partly interesting. My interest is 60 out of possible 100, which is pretty interesting.
Maybe I will eventually create Planetary human habitability article one day, that's would be intersting. I thinking I knew about the conditions needed to support human life, including suitable climate, a large moon, right axial tilt, suitable surface temperature, partial pressures of gases, atmospheric pressure, insolation, gravity, etc. I knew that human life will develop advanced technologies, including space travel and satellites.
The class M planet article is the type of planet supporting humanoid life, but it is mostly fictional, but Earth is practically a class M planet in science textbooks. BlueEarth (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"60% interesting about conditions..." should be "I am 60% interested in the conditions..." and "which is pretty interested." - less confusing. again what is your first language. Careful which translator you use. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 8:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The first language is that extrasolar human life on Earth-like planets must orbit around sunlike stars and have life evolve for a long time (at least 3.5 Gyr). BlueEarth (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Habitable Moon

BlueEarth, You like? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

File:Habitable Moon 1.0.1.jpg
Yes that's my artistry, GabrielVelasquez.

Re: Habitable Moon

I like this picture you created on my talk page. This picture is about Earth-like moon orbiting around blue gas giant planet. This Earth-like moon is covered with some forests/grasses, some oceans, some covered with snow/ice, and some are barren. This moon maybe supporting complex life and possibly intelligent life. BlueEarth (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that why you like it because it looks like it would support life?
Or maybe, what translator are you using?
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this moon would support life based on its appearance, green areas represent forests and grasses, which were living plants; while other colored areas were lifeless, including water, snow & ice, mountains, and other geographical areas . The translator I'm using is an extrasolar moon orbiting around blue water jovian extrasolar planet which orbits around G-type star. BlueEarth (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Earth Forest Percentages (Forest planet)

My-good-blue-man, where did you get the percentages for Earth's forest area?
If you don't cough those up, I'll have to swap them for the percentages in the Forest article.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I got the percentages of forest area on Earth's surface when I learned in school in World Geography class. I knew that Earth's forest area in proportion to Earth's total surface has reduced from 20% to 6% because of human deforestation. The percentages of forest area in proportion to land area is to divide by 0.29 and I'll get 69% reduced to 21%. BlueEarth (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't get this formulation, but that's moot as I don't see a... reference "{ref} either.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

hours, minutes, seconds

"but you have to know what Right ascension (hours, minutes, seconds) means and what Declination (degrees, minutes, seconds) means,"
- Thanks for correcting my laziness. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

HD 27442 / HD 27442 b

Do you know how to link this search item to the right (wrong name) article: Epsilon Reticuli b.
I would actually move the article to the right name and reference it the other way, if I knew how, since the HD catalog is most common.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In Epsilon Reticuli article, there is a link to Epsilon Reticuli b by clicking on extrasolar planet in introduction section. Of course in Epsilon Reticuli b article, there is a link to Epsilon Reticuli by clicking on Epsilon Reticuli link. BlueEarth (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
HD 27442 / HD 27442 b
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: BF and PS catalogue

I got the list of BF stars from here. It seems rather comprehensive given that it includes the obscure Latin alphabet Bayer designations. The lists here should be complete. I don't know how wikisky.org can have that many BF stars. — JyriL talk 10:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't, probably no one knows for sure since they didn't include southern constellations, not to mention that some of the constellations didn't exist at their time, and some stars have changed a constellation when borders have changed and so on... I would either not include a precise number of stars, or resort to a more reliable source. I don't see this as an important issue. — JyriL talk 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Search for brown dwarf databases, discovery papers etc. BD discoveries haven't got as much publicity as extrasolar planets. — JyriL talk 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Planetary human habitability

I have nominated Planetary human habitability, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planetary human habitability. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jmlk17 10:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Conversion of units

Please provide a reference for the unusual units you have added to the Conversion of units article. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

HD 221287 b Table Borders

Do you know what the table border's won't appear here:
HD 221287 b
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because you've added border="1" just before align="center". BlueEarth (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No man, I had it that way before, and added that "border=1" line to try to fix it;
it turns out there was just a quotation mark missing: diff --GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Long time, No see

Hey, not on that often are you. What have you been up to?
What do you think of the Insolation charts I started adding?
Do you think I should add them to any others, like HD 28185 b
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should add insolation chart to HD 28185 b, because this planet may have Earth-like moons with liquid water on it surface and even life. Insolation charts provides how much stellar radiation does planets recieve from the stars. Think we should put the insolation to the planetbox in every planet articles in W/m2. BlueEarth (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Today and yesterday, I cleaned up the articles about stars with newly discovered planets: HD 181433 and HD 40307, respectively. Before that, I splitted several planets from parent stars into its own articles. Maybe I will continue on splitting planets from parent stars into its own articles. I will might create new categories: bright stars and nearby stars and add those to necessary star articles. Every months, I create new extrasolar planet articles and maybe host stars about the new planets that were discovered in previous month (if necessary) and add new planets to the list of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets (if necessary). BlueEarth (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, I like your diligent thoroughness. I'm sure you could calculate the insolation/irradiance figures and add the charts yourself. Incidentally, do you happen to know how they know the photosphere temperature of some stars, what data do they use to find the values? I know how star radius, temperature and luminosity are related, but how do they even get two of those so they can calculate the third, and even when I can calculate the Luminosity for example, the other two (R&T) don't add up where they have them listed. Do you know what I am talking about? Lsol=(Rsol)^2/(Tsol^4), and the other I know is L=0.0813x (d^2)x 10^(-0.4xm). These are from the article on Luminosity.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The temperature of the star can be calculated inversely from its b-v color index (I don't know what's the exact equation is). The luminsoity of the star can also be calculated from its absolute magnitude. BlueEarth (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but my point is the data doesn't add up at this catalog: [1] that is referenced a lot at wikipedia. Compare the Radius and Temperature using the Luminosity formula (L=0.0813x (d^2)x 10^(-0.4xm)) and see if you get the same Radius for that Temperature listed, I usually don't. Also don't you find it odd that some times they list the planet's mass, orbit radius and period and then the mass of the star remains unknown, like this professional astronomers are forgetting Keplers law of periods. I've see star masses listed and then period but no semi-major axis, does that make sense to you some how?? I'll add some examples soon. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Catalog entry for HD 108874 b
says the following about the star and planet:

• Apparent Magnitude V = 8.76
• Distance = 68.5 pc
• Effective Temperature = 5407 K
• Semi major axis = 1.051 AU
• Orbital period = 395.4 days
• Eccentricity = 0.07

So going back to the luminosity formula that uses distance and magnitude: (L=0.0813x (d^2)x 10^(-0.4xm)) for this star it would be 1.27154895550129 sol. Now again using the relationship between luminosity, radius and temperature in the same article:
${\displaystyle {\frac {L}{L_{\odot }}}={\left({\frac {R}{R_{\odot }}}\right)}^{2}{\left({\frac {T}{T_{\odot }}}\right)}^{4}}$.
When you use this calculated Luminosity and one of the other two (R/T) from the catalog you get different figures for each arrangement:
If R=1.22 and L=1.2715489 then T=5554.96 °K
If T=5407°K and L=1.2715489 then R=1.20
I have a better example but I will go through with this one so you can see what big differents in makes when calculating the heat.
If T=5554.96 °K then Average Flux is 115.11% of Earth's average.
If R=1.20 then Average Flux is 99.97% of Earth's average.
If both R=1.22 and T=5407°K then Average Flux is 103.33% of Earth's average.
This variation gets more extreme after factoring in eccentricity. But as it is the 15.14% variation range is large considering Earth's average varies less than 3% either way, Aphelion and Perihelion. So is the Catalog right or Wikipedia.
I recommend not referencing the Catalog in the encyclopedia. Try it yourself with HD 188015 b, and you'll see that one is even more extreme a variation. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

editing other's user pages

You know I'm as detailed oriented a person as you are and I appreciate your thoroughness, but you should know by now not to edit other people's user pages. I appreciate that you noticed those links on my user page could have looked better, but you don't know that I didn't want it that way; you should have just pointed it out to me and let me fix it - it is my user page, and the only thing users can effectively call their own on this site. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sabotaging articles

This guy User:NuclearVacuum is continually sabotaging astronomy pages:
diff1
I would keep an eye on his edits. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability
If you are interested in trying again with "(planetary) Human Habitability" here is the place for input, but please no more stuff about ETs and make sure you have referencing for everything you suggest. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Planet Character Box changes, good and bad

I see that you added the insolation which is good, but some people are going to take issue with that word a opposed to heat or irradiance.
I like insolation but I believe the most correct term is irradiance. Also, I don't know how you added the Watts per square meter but you need to change the link to the article on the units, if that is what you are linking it to. Lastly, I think the temperature entry is very speculative and usually wrong, no one seems to be doing that level of calculating for these planets except for me. Any formula that attempted to suggest a planet temperature would have to factor in Albedo and Emissivity both, and only a possible range for these can be given in these cases so the result is mearly speculation. This is the formula I use:

For Earth it works out to 14 degrees if you use 0.3 for Albedo and 0.62 for Emissivity.
It's actually in this chart here at Derivation in the Gliese 581 c article.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Planetbox character
| mass=>1.36 ± 0.13
| insolation = 1414
| insolation_earth = 1.03
| temperature = ~262 K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_188015
If you are going to be adding these charts you're going to need at least the formula as a reference or they will get deleted.
Also I tend to format them in order of percentage for easier comparison. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear that the formula above was not to be used. It was for estimates of surface celsius temperature when you actually know the albedo and the emissivity. It is definately not for referencing the data in insolation charts. Here is the first chart I added and you can use it as a template:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_20367_b

${\displaystyle f_{p}={\frac {((0.38\times 6.955\times 10^{8})^{2})\times (5.67051\times 10^{-8})\times (3480^{4})}{((0.073-(0.073\times 0.16))\times 149597876600)^{2}}}}$
<ref>and place it in here.</ref>
--GabrielVelasquez (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Planetary mass classifications

You created a series of a articles and categories related to planetary mass classification. After looking at both Google and various scholarly resources I could find no foundation for the terms in the way you are using them. As such I have nominated these articles for deletion. If there is an established history of using these terms in reliable sources, then you are welcome to argue for their inclusion, but as far as I can tell you are using this terminology in a novel fashion, which makes them unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. Dragons flight (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Speculative values in infoboxes

Please do not keep adding speculative radius and temperature values to extrasolar planet infoboxes. For the majority of these planets, the true mass is unknown, so any values put into a theoretical model suffer from the problem that we don't have a reliable idea of what parameters to input. Even if the true mass were known, we do not have any idea whether these planets have massive cores (that would shrink the radius), anomalously large internal heat sources (which would increase the radius and planetary temperature). For this reason, the values on Extrasolar Visions are unreliable, aside from the fact that the site has not been updated since 2005 because of the death of the site's creator, and exoplanetary theory has advanced significantly since then. The duty of an Encyclopaedia is to represent the state of our knowledge, not to keep inserting guesses and wild speculation when we can't fill out every field in an infobox. Extrasolar Visions is not a reliable source. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

2006 Tampa Bay Devil Rays season log

Jumped the gun a bit, didn't you? Just started working on it, and as time allows, I do what I can. I should be done in no more than a week or two, at which point, I'll put it up. But thanks for the enthusiasm nonetheless! :-) You a Rays fan or something? EaglesFanInTampa 03:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I am a White Sox fan. Moving your sandbox to this template was a mistake, and I moved it back to original page name, because this Devil Rays game log on your sandbox was for 2007 season, not 2006 season. This template redirects to your user sandbox page needs to be deleted, unless if you going to make 2006 Tampa Bay Devils Rays game log. BlueEarth (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:GTC

Hello, see here Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/55 Cancri. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate designations in exoplanet articles

Hi, I noticed you have added several alternative designations to exoplanet articles. Could you please provide references of reliable sources which use these designations for the planet, e.g. if you want to put "GJ 9189 b" as an alternative designation for Pi Mensae b, can you find a source which refers to the planet by this name? Thanks. Icalanise (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the alternative planet designations cited directly from the other designations for parent star. BlueEarth (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, sure I am not debating that the star is referred to as GJ 9189, I am questioning whether any reliable source calls the planet "GJ 9189 b". If no-one calls the planet "GJ 9189 b", then stating it as an alternative designation is making stuff up, thus can be removed on the grounds of verifiability. Icalanise (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Planetbox layouts

As someone who is involved in maintaining the various Planetbox templates, it would be good to have your opinion on a proposed layout change. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Proposed layout change to Planetbox templates for details. Icalanise (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OMFG!!!

You are really using the name "Eros" for HD 28185 b? I saw it on your sandbox. I feel so loved ^_^ — NuclearVacuum 22:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my former name for this planet was "Troil" and then I changed it to "Eros" because you created this name few months ago. Eros is a mythological name while Troil was a made-up name. BlueEarth (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Extrasolar Visions

A tag has been placed on Extrasolar Visions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Extrasolar Visions

A tag has been placed on Talk:Extrasolar Visions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Talk:Extrasolar Visions|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Megaman en m (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia and Extrasolar Visions

While I agree with the WP:CSD reasoning for Extrasolar Visions, the article on the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is probably one that should stay. I've definitely come across scientific papers that reference it, which would fulfil criterion #1 of WP:INTERNET. I'll try to find a couple to put into the article when I have time to do so. Icalanise (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rings of Saturn

Please do not add articles to WP:FA that haven't been reviewed and promoted at WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Francium compounds

Thank you for your enthusiasm, but we only write articles about notable compounds based on referenced facts, not on speculation. Same goes for adding phase data for elements that haven't been made in large enough amounts to observe the phase, unless you can reference a reliable publication that gives a theoretical estimate. Also, if you change data in the element infoboxes, please say exactly where you got it so everyone can verify. --Itub (talk) 06:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

Hey, BlueEarth.

I have been working on the HD 40307 article, but because of my terribly inappropriate inexperience with astronomy articles (Thanks for correcting my inaccuracies constantly on HD 40307's planets), I was wondering if you could take a look at the article and suggest any possible methods for the improvement of the article before it goes GAN.

Please get back to me as soon as you can; your feedback will be much appreciated.

--Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 08:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at everything. I added one last thing to HD 40307 to keep it consistent with the articles on the planets (the thing about the metallicity of stars and their possible insights on planetary formation). So, it looks good for GAN, then?
I think it's a plan, to work towards achieving GA status on other exoplanetary articles. I'll certainly help out. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Francium fluoride

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Francium fluoride, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

very little is known about this compound, and none of it is reflected in this speculative stub. If anyone wants to add actual referenced facts, they can fit with no trouble in the francium article. The only references I could find are a handful of Russian papers from the 1960s and 1970s

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Raven1977 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense of Bayesian Kepler periodogram

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Bayesian Kepler periodogram, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Bayesian Kepler periodogram provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Bayesian Kepler periodogram, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Minimum mass in OrbitboxPlanet

I'm not sure it's really necessary to have a minimum mass parameter in {{OrbitboxPlanet}}, it takes more space to write "minimum_mass" out than just using "mass" and putting in a > sign, and it doesn't affect the column headings (as opposed to {{Planetbox character}}, where using the minimum mass parameter displays "m sin i" instead of just "m" as the variable name). Icalanise (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

HD 189733

Hi Blueearth,

I wanted to thank you for all the work that you have done in editing exoplanet articles in wikipedia.

I am a professional astronomer who works closely with many of the scientists who have discovered the exoplanets described in wikipedia and/or conducted the follow-up observations of the transiting systems.

My colleagues and I were discussing the exoplanet content on wikipedia and we all agreed that we were surprised by the relatively large numbers of errors in the articles. For example, we took a quick look at the article on HD 189733, a planet we know and love, and quickly found a handful of errors. For example, this planet was not discovered by Marcy et al. and was not discovered as a transiting system. Of course, these are minor points. Perhaps more worrying are the statements related to CO2 and life, which are really farfetched.

Anyway, I see that you have made several important edits to this page and I just wanted to bring these errors to your attention.

Keep up the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.152.115 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bayesian Kepler periodogram

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bayesian Kepler periodogram, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable. This technique for analysing radial velocity datasets does not appear to be widely-used, and has no convincing discoveries to date (both planets "found" are unconfirmed/disproven).

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Icalanise (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

BlueEarth, you should add some references to this article you made. and contact the other people who have helped. This guy Icalanise thinks what he says is always irrefutable, and I would be a shame if he got your work deleted. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I saw that on December 19 at between 9pm to 12am (CST time), Spacepotato improved this article to make it clearer and also he added more references, so this article shall less likely be deleted. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 19:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox1 inspiration

considering this user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BlueEarth/Sandbox1
I thought you might find this inspirational: http://www.lemoneyes-radio.com/stargen/
as well as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_planet_classifications
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked into this article. It has good classifications for planets used in Star Trek. I like when this classification is used for classifying planets in astronomy, when direct observations of exoplanets became common. The Latin letters for classifying planets is similar to that used for spectral classification of stars. But some of the different classes of planets appear similar to some other classes of planets. I knew that some letters are used only for gas giants while others only for terrestrial planets. Did you know, we live on a class M planet – Earth. The largest planet in our solar system – Jupiter is a class J planet. Maybe I would classify every exoplanets using this classification, like I did with planetary mass classification and planetary appearance classification. This Star Trek classification is similar to appearance classification. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)