Talk:PSR B1620-26 c
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
PSR B1620-26 c has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. | |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. | |
|
This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
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)
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)
Contents |
[edit] Article location
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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
