Talk:Gliese 504 b

GJ 504 or 59 Virginis

What was the rationale for moving this entry to "59 Virginis b"? The discovery paper describes the object as GJ 504 b, as does the follow-up paper by Janson et al.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2632cgn (talk • contribs) 00:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Internal consistency: We already had the star's article at 59 Virginis. The names are otherwise equivalent. --JorisvS (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The name 59 Virginis is not used by Astronomers and only represents a name in one particular catalog. Both the planet page and star page should be renamed to the name that is actually used (GJ 504). Martin Cash (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"GJ 504"/"Gl 504"/"Gliese 504" is similarly just one name in a catalogue. The Gliese catalogue is pretty prominent, so it would not surprise me that the Gliese designation is more widely used than the ones in the other very prominent and popular catalogues, the Flamsteed one (59 Virginis) or the Bayer one (e Virginis), the Harvard Bright Star Catalogue one (HR 5011), Draper Catalogue one (HD 115383), or Hipparcos Catalogue one (HIP 64792)

At any rate, all the formatted versions of popular catalogues should have a redirect to this object

GJ504b/GJ504 b/GJ 504b/GJ 504 b / Gl504b/Gl504 b/Gl 504b/Gl 504 b / Gliese 504b/Gliese 504 b

59 Virginis b/59 Vir b / e Virginis b/e Vir b

H. R. 5011b/H. R. 5011 b / H.R.5011b/H.R. 5011b/H.R.5011 b/H.R. 5011 b / HR5011b/HR 5011b/HR5011 b/HR 5011 b

HD115383b/HD115383 b/HD 115383b/HD 115383 b

HIP64792b/HIP64792 b/HIP 64792b/HIP 64792 b

-- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move (2014)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per common name. Consistency is a WP:AT criterion but it doesn't supersede verifiability or recognizability. DrKay (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

---

59 Virginis b → GJ 504b – The name "59 Virginis b" appears to have been invented by Wikipedia. Reliable sources use "GJ 504b", as evidenced by the discovery paper [1] and the press release [2] and media coverage [3]. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Martin Cash (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support move to Gliese 504b, although the parent article (59 Virginis) should not be moved. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Flamsteed star designation is higher classed than Gliese star designation, so does the associated planets. Why discovery papers prefer GJ 504b not 59 Vir b? PlanetStar 22:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Presumably because in this context, "higher classed" turns out not to be a trump card so doesn't apply as strongly as you imply - David Gerard (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have absolutely no idea why the discovery paper used the Gliese designation (seems counterintuitive to me), but it, and other papers, did for some reason. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose only moving this article without also moving the parent star's article, for internal naming consistency of the articles. Neutral if both are moved. --JorisvS (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment consistency isn't the only thing that matters, if the common names of the two subjects are different, then we have redirects to handle the problem with formulaic entries into wikilinks and searchboxes. Some of the exoplanets on Wikipedia don't even share formulaic naming with their parent stars, but are catalogue names separate from any association with the star's name, so this issue isn't a biggie. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally feel that all articles should be at their most common names that they're likely to be searched for, and while the planet is referred to by its Gliese designation for some reason, the star is still referred to by its Flamsteed designation more, and thus should not be moved no matter what. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Consistency is not in fact an argument that overrides the overwhelming common usage of the differing names, per policy - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, WP:TITLES also has consistency as a criterion. --JorisvS (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

To quote from the section that mentions consistency: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains." (emphasis mine) ... so far it has not been demonstrated in this discussion that "59 Virginis b" is a way that reliable English-language sources refer to this object. Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing nomenclature. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You should stop claiming invention. It's a formulaic name, so isn't some invention. Your proposed name is also a formulaic creation. Any formulaic name is not an invention, it is an application of an accepted formula. There is no creativity involved. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a name invented according to a formula. That means it is a name that plausibly could be used at some point in the future, but no guarantee that it will be. As opposed to "GJ 504b" which is demonstrably in actual use in a wide variety of sources. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment User:JorisvS -- I would like to protest against your edit [4] - the requested move was to "GJ 504b" not to "GJ 504 b". All the sources I referenced do NOT use the additional space. Very bad form to modifying the request and my wording, especially since you did so without leaving a visible note that you had done so. I have reverted the request to the format I used originally. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  Because it was previously at GJ 504 b (with a space), because the papers refer to it like that (not without a space), and because that is the most common way for exoplanet designations, I merely assumed a typo and "corrected" it. --JorisvS (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  All three of the sources I linked use the unspaced form, including the discovery paper. (See also the page at ApJ which also uses the unspaced form [5]). So your "not without a space" comment is incorrect. 77.56.99.23 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  The same article on arXiv has it spaced. --JorisvS (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• What does the fox say? Err, I mean, the naming convention. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • However, the naming conventions are only a guideline, and not policy. I think this is one of the times when it is necessary to WP:IAR and go with the commonly-known name for the exoplanet, which is GJ 504b, and not what our guideline WP:NCASTRO states. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We should really be consistent in the designations of the stars and their planets. --JorisvS (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What comparable situations do we have where the RSes say one thing for the star and another for the planet? The article on Earth isn't titled Sol d - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course in case there would be a name, then we'd use that. However, it only has a designation, i.e. star name or designation + minuscule. All I am going for is being consistent in that first part. I do not have other examples from the top of my head, and do not know a way to look for them. --JorisvS (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS overrides in-WikiProject guidelines - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pink appearance

This page claims the appearance is pink, and links to an article by NASA. I could not find a single paper that mentions a reason behind the planet appearing pink, nor any paper that even claims it's pink. As far as I'm aware, it has a methane composition, and is roughly 500 K ―both of which point toward it being rather bluish than pink in appearance, as methane is bluish and 500K isn't enough for temperature to radiate visible light. In the paper which Michael Elwain (from whence the 'pink gas' claim originates) was an author, (10.1088/0004-637X/774/1/11), it is said that the planet has a 'blue color'. What's the source? Sblana (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to the lead image? It's from https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/astronomers-image-lowest-mass-exoplanet-around-a-sun-like-star: "a color reminiscent of a dark cherry blossom, a dull magenta". DrKay (talk) 09:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's just straight up misinformation to put up an image of a pink planet. IMO there shouldn't be an image at all if it's gonna be this incorrect.

I could draw an image of a stick-figure throwing a frisbee and say "yo this is what proxima centauri looks like", and it would be idiotic to put that on wikipedia's proxima centauri page as an artist's representation of proxima centauri. Therefore, we can recognise that one shouldn't just put an artist's representation on a wikipedia page simply for the reason that it's an artist's representation.

There's several people online saying there's a pink planet. I was very disappointed when I found out it was just because some people thought including a complete misrepresentation of a planet was a good idea in a nasa article and this wikipedia article.

Example https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/space/article/pink-planet

I am personally of the opinion that the responsibility of wikipedia isn't to stop people from spreading just straight up misinformation, but it is wikipedia's responsibility to not spread misinformation. Sblana (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I am really tempted to remove the cover image. It doesn't matter who made it, there's no scientific backing behind a pink or magenta appearance. *Dull* magenta is different from magenta. It's just misinformation. If nobody cares I'll remove it —unless that's like against Wikipedia laws.

Any objections to the removal of the misinformation image?

Or is a clarification —something like "Although the illustrator chose to represent the planet as pink, there is no scientific backing for this. The theorised appearance would be a dull magenta." — in the description preferred? Sblana (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)