Template:Did you know nominations/KIC 8462852

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PFHLai (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

KIC 8462852

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

The constellation of Cygnus

• ... that KIC 8462852 in Cygnus (pictured) will be searched for signs of alien civilisation?
• ALT1 ... that Tabby's star in Cygnus (pictured) will be searched for signs of alien civilisation?
• ALT2 ... that Tabby's star in Cygnus (pictured) with very unusual objects in orbit, is being searched for signs of alien civilisation?

• Reviewed: Ragged Ass Road

Created by Spudst3r (talk) and Drbogdan (talk). Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk) at 11:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC). Comment - Things are happening fast. The SETI Institute already started scanning the vicinity of the star for radio transmissions. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• @BatteryIncluded: Thanks for the comment. As you're already familiar with the topic, perhaps you could do a timely review here, please? Andrew D. (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with procedures. My review is ALT2. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Since you and Drbogdan are the top contributors to the article,[1] I don't think you are eligible to review the hook, although I'm sure someone will chime in here to correct me if I'm wrong as the rules are somewhat hazy on this point (the DYKmake wikitext below indicates you are receiving credit for this hook). FWIW, is there any evidence that this star is actively referred to as "Tabby's star"? I'm asking because after reading all of the literature and listening to all the interviews and podcasts, I don't recall seeing that term in use. Viriditas (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Yes "Tabby's star" is referenced at: REF-1 - and REF-2 - and REF-3 - also see => "Talk:KIC 8462852#Unofficial names" - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of those sources, Drbogdan, hence the problem. As I said above, is there any evidence that this star is actively referred to as "Tabby's star"? Those sources that you provided only show that Wright uses it as an affectation out of respect for his colleague. Putting the recentism aside, most sources (and other researchers) do not refer to it by that name nor is it an official designation. As a result, I do not think it should be used in the hook and I don't think it should be given the weight it currently receives. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thank you for your clarification - yes - I understand - and agree with you - and supportive of your viewpoint - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment in orbit is speculation at this point. The objects don't have to be gravitational bound to the star (though it's likely). Gap9551 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Astronomers noted that it takes days for the star to get dimmer, which suggests a very low mutual velocity for the occulter and the star, indicating it is in orbit around the star. BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily - you can have things along the same line of sight that happen to have very similar apparent velocitities from Earth but aren't in orbit around each other (e.g. if you look at spectral lines in the Andromeda Galaxy, some of them coincidentally appear to have the same velocity as the Milky Way due to a coincidence in redshift and doppler shifts). At the current time, I think using the words "may be" is important when talking about the different hypotheses here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please use the official designation, rather than an colloquial name as the ALT1 & 2 do. But more importantly, please focus on the scientific result here, rather than the hyperbolic media reporting. Many star systems are observed in the hope of finding signs of alien civilisations, and this isn't a unique instance of that. Perhaps instead, say:

  ALT3 ... that the Kepler space telescope has seen unusual patterns in the light from KIC 8462852 that may be caused by exocomets passing in front of the star?

  Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• The point of the hook is to attract attention and so it is quite legitimate to focus on the hypothesis that has generated all the buzz. As no-one knows for sure what is causing this phenomenon, then ALT3 might be trimmed to make it more hooky. I still prefer the original hook, myself. Andrew D. (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  ALT4 ... that the Kepler space telescope has seen unusual patterns in the light from KIC 8462852?

References

• This article is new enough and long enough. The original hook and ALT4 are both acceptable and I have struck the other hooks. The image is not included in the article and is therefore not acceptable for DYK. The article is neutral and is free from copyright issues as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)