Talk:Epsilon Eridani b

Don't blame Canada[edit]

"The planet's existence was suspected by a Canadian team led by Bruce Campbell and Gordon Walker in the early 1990s".
If so, why is it stated as an US discovery? US did only confirm what canadians discovered, sayis in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.180.126 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. A suspicion is not a confirmed discovery, according to established scientific culture. A suspicion is barely notable at all, since it could as well have been in error. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed or confirmed[edit]

I propose that this planet be considered "confirmed". The only real challenge was Brogi's in 2009, on the basis of "physical impossibility" rather than "observationally". This challenge was met in 2010. Observationally I haven't seen an attack on the results in the way of, say, Baluev's debunking of GJ 581 d, f, g. If there is such an article, let's have it. --Zimriel (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Anglada-Escudé et al. (2012) "The HARPS-TERRA Project. I. Description of the Algorithms, Performance, and New Measurements on a Few Remarkable Stars Observed by HARPS" - gets a different orbital solution, regarded as suspect.
[2] Zechmeister et al. (arXiv 2012) "The planet search programme at the ESO CES and HARPS. IV. The search for Jupiter analogues around solar-like stars" - planet not present in their data.

84.73.25.195 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a counter-example, I checked Janson et al (2015) and they still list it as a "candidate" planet. Asserting that this is confirmed seems like WP:OR. I think we should wait for the astronomy community to settle this more decisively, and until then treat it as unconfirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Upsilon Andromedae d which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orthography[edit]

Several people leading IAU naming committees have admitted that they don't know how to use Unicode, or that their typesetting software isn't equipped to handle anything but ASCII. They can't even deal with German eszett. That was still true in 2018, and is only starting to be addressed in 2019. The spelling "AEgir" is an obvious attempt to render "Ægir" in ASCII. (The naming committees don't accept camelcase, for example.) There's no need to slavishly follow IAU orthography when they themselves admit their incompetence. I don't mind copying their faulty orthography here, but a little common sense is called for.

If the article is moved, it should of course go to the intended name Ægir, not to the computer hack they used out of desperation. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the intended name Ægir for the moon (Aegir (moon)), which was named first ? Baleer (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the IAU puts it in writing that they wanted the name to be Ægir, better yet that the name actually is Ægir, then we can use it. Until then, see WP:OR. Lithopsian (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]