Jump to content

Talk:HD 188753

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reyk (talk | contribs) at 09:28, 28 August 2008 (Merger proposal: -agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Expansion

This page has a request for expansion listed on it, but there is no discussion either here or on the Wikipedia:Requests for expansion page. Anyone know what's needed? Or should we delete the request? --zandperl 18:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been there since the early days of this article. I don't think it's needed anymore. --Der Sporkmeister 19:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --zandperl 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

trinary star planetary system

In the introductory paragraph: This star system is only the second triple-star system known to have a planet orbiting it, and later on: In 2005 the discovery of HD 188753 Ab was the first known planet in a triple star system. So, which is it? Is it the first or the second? Nik42 08:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The planet HD 188753 Ab is not currently thought to exist: a second team searching for the planet failed to find any evidence of it, and in fact showed that the data in the original discovery paper do not support the proposed planetary candidate [1]. Having an entire article about the planet thus gives entirely too much attention to a nonexistent object. It is long past the time Maciej Konacki said he planned to have issued an update [2], and in any case the wording of his response to the Eggenberger et al. paper indicates that whatever solution he was investigating was an alternative to the original solution, NOT a confirmation of the original one. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]