Talk:Proxima Centauri b

New study regarding life-supporting chances

So recently a new study was released regarding the possibility of some of the closest exoplanets supporting life. In a nutshell, they basically say that the radiation that is received by the exoplanets is actually less then what the early Earth was subjected to (about 3.8 Ga), and life was able to originate under these conditions. I think it could be helpful if we incoperate this study into the article but not make it too OR. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

If anyone does anything with this, the reference to use is this, the actual study. I haven't had time to go over it in detail, but I'm skeptical - the concern I've seen about flares has been about stripping atmospheres from planets, rather than the radiation per se. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

True but I think they mention something about that I’m not sure. Should look at it more in-depth before we make the jump with this. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Mention of May 2019 preprint arxiv paper in introduction

Earlier in May 2019, a user edited the introduction to add the following: "In May 2019, a paper published on the astrophysics preprint-arxiv presenting recent Spitzer Space Telescope observations put doubt on the initial detection, finding no transits, and attributing the initial detection to correlated noise."

The added wording makes it sound as if the study concludes that the entire detection was the result of correlated noise (i.e. that Proxima Centauri b may not exist at all). However, reading the paper referred to, they don't seem to conclude this at all. Rather, they conclude that the planet simply does not transit, and explain reports of transits following the initial detection (which was made using radial velocity measurements) as correlated noise. Nothing in the paper seems to refute the original RV detection at all. As written, the addition to the article here seems grossly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:B600:7310:CD67:365B:B49E:B060 (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, and in fact the previous edit sounds as though the editor her/himself did not understand the difference between transit detections and radial velocity detections. I changed the wording to more accurately reflect the preprint, but the paper may or course be edited after peer and before publication, and anyway this statement might be more appropriate in another section. If anyone thinks so, please move it. Be bold! Illexsquid (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Discovered in 2016?

Then what this 2012 Nature article is about? https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11572 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.178.156 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri B, not Proxima Centauri. Serendi^podous 16:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Specifically, Alpha Centauri Bb documents that observation and subsequent refutation. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2012, there was some weak evidence found for a possible planet orbiting around Proxima Centauri at 5.6 days, half the later confirmed 11.2 days. But, I think it was discovered by Anglada-Escudé et al and published in the The Astrophysical Journal. see - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/15 (In the paper at "4.1. Proxima, a Flaring M4V")

Ideas and questions on a future expansion

So, like with TRAPPIST-1 I've been thinking for a while about trying to bring this article up to FA status.

Now unlike other articles I've brought from stub or redlink to FA this one is already fairly well-developed, so I am going to discuss a few things:

• Currently the article does use references w/o indicating specific page numbers for particular claims. In my experience FA usually expects page numbers when the source is more than a few pages long. So a rewrite would imply adding lots of page numbers.
• Partly as a corollary to the above, it's usually much easier to write new text from scratch & replace the current text from scratch than to add page numbers to already existing sourced text. I am not sure what people's considerations are on this.
• It seems like astronomy articles often use databases as sources; is there a list of such sources that could/should be used?
• Is there an established "best practice" on how to balance sources that rely on computer simulation with these that rely on observations?
• Should topics like planetary atmospheres be discussed in a dedicated header, or per planet?

Note that I am purposefully planning to do this before the launch of the James Webb Telescope; I want to split the work so that it's not too much at once. This question is a repost of the one on Talk:TRAPPIST-1 if it matters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite is up

I've written up a proposed rewrite here. Main thing I did is to add page numbers everywhere since the current citation format does not have 'em, and made the article less dependent on newspapers/newsmedia. There is some content in the current article I didn't take over, either because it's unsourced or because the sources seem questionable to me. I'll wait a couple or so of weeks before swapping it in, in case there are objections, since I don't think it's 100% clear that it's better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I am taking silence as assent and have put in the rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I forgot that thi article is tagged as a GA - will need to re-review it after the rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri b

The following discussion 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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

So, a few weeks ago I installed a major rewrite of this article and there are later edits too. I should have done this GAR earlier, since the article is now completely different from the time at which it passed GAN I think the new version should be checked against the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks for your work on this article. I'm the original reviewer that passed this article in its previous review. I'm happy to take a look this again for the reassessment if that would be desirable. I'll likely be able to put some time in this weekend. ♫CheChe♫ talk 11:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that could work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Going by this someone else will have to do the re-review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is in a good shape, everything is cited, no cleanup templates. If it looks like GA, it is GA. Artem.G (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• CommentKeep. Very close to GA, but there are a few places where the prose is not quite clear
  • The paragraph starting with "Climate models including"
    • "Planets partially or wholly covered with ice" -> I thought the article is about a single planet
      • Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    • The additional factors sentence could be split in two/three/four
      • Listified this sentence; I don't think an arbitrary split works from a good writing perspective but it is overlong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Proxima Centauri b receives about 10-60 times as much of this radiation as Earth[50] with a particular increase in the X-rays[69] and might have received even more in the past,[70] adding up to 7-16 times as much cumulative XUV radiation than Earth -> can be split too. The mid-sentence cites make it difficult to parse
    • Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • (I don't think it's a GA criteria, but the diagrams section could be better integrated into the article).
    • Restructured the image use here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Femke (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't understand: "From Proxima Centauri b, Alpha Centauri would be considerably brighter than Venus is from Earth". Proxima Centauri b is a part of Alpha Centauri, so comparing it with Venus/Earth makes little sense I would think. Femke (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I would think most people will read "Alpha Centauri" as the star, not the entire system. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm.. I was just going off wikilinks here, having no prior knowledge. Googling "alpha centauri" leads only to pages about the star system, rather than an individual star. Could you clarify which star is meant? Femke (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think that most people won't care about the distinction star-star system. In my experience, when you are talking about a star system you aren't part of star and star system aren't distinguished. If you are part of the system then you do distinguish (Sun vs. Solar System) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I assume you're right, but what's the harm in changing it to "Proxima Centauri" for those who are unaware of such a convention? Femke (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that would make it any clearer, and we are talking about the planet not the star. And the convention above is also used in lay sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry to be a pain, but I still don't understand the sentence. In my reading it can mean either: "From the planet Proxima Centauri b, the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri ..." Or From the planet Proxima Centauri b, the binary stars Alpha Centauri AB ..". I think if you add "the binary stars of Alpha Centauri", the AB can be omitted. Femke (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  Put a variant of that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2022 (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.

Regarding the source for Proxima Centauri b not transiting...

...added in this edit: I originally considered using this source but decided against it because other sources say the same thing and Frontiers Media has a somewhat dodgy reputation. Pinging @Sir Proxima Centauri:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is that problematic however, as Frontiers' controversies seem to revolve about somewhat more society-related studies (e.g. HIV, CoViD) than, say, astrophysics (Judging by a quick look into the Wiki page). Some of the authors also appear to have helped somewhat "reputable" studies about other exoplanets (e.g. TOI-1338b and TESS planets), which, at least I personally think, should make the source more of a non-issue. Should I perhaps add, or even replace the source with this one (https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.01336), that basically concludes the same as you said ? Sir Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

These are reasonable arguments. I'll withdraw my concern. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri d

Is Proxima Centauri d confirmed to exist? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• Yep! Published just last week! --Shadow (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Most famous?

Is Proxima Centauri b the best known exoplanet, even compared with the 51 Pegasi one or TRAPPIST-1? As claimed in this source Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Most famous exoplanet is hard to determine. I think it's okay to keep that claim Redacted II (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that this shows in the reader numbers as well. I'll integrate it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course not. Whoever added that line does not know about exoplanets, or how to write, or both. Removing. 209.194.208.148 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. 2/3rds of editors supported it's addition. Do not remove until a new consensus is formed Redacted II (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Depends what exactly is meant - "best studied by astronomers" is definitely wrong; "best known to the general public" is plausible, but as said that's hard to determine. I don't think this is important enough to be in the lead section, but since it's cited it could be added to a "cultural impact" or similar section. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit by MarioProtIV I kind of worry that the source does not say "to the general public" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there is room for that, and also “best-known” without context as it was before is vague so that’s probably what the intention was. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)