# Talk:PSR B1620−26 b

If "Methuselah" is the planet's "nickname", what is the actual name?  -- Wondering simply, Infrogmation 20:11 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the current official designation would be PSR B1620-26 b. -- 212.127.141.173 00:15 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The evolutionary history is an 'educated guess'. A google search for "site:arxiv.org PSR B1620-26" or something similar and browsing through the dozens of articles popping up might help in refining the details. But grammar and spelling need revision (I'm not a native English speaker).

-- Caid Raspa 10:01 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

How can the planet PSR B1620-26c remain in stable orbit around two stars for a mere day? There is definitely no computable analytical solution for the generic three body problem. That planet must have propulsion to keep its orbit or it would crash or fly off! Maybe it's the planet described in Stanislaw Lem's Solaris SF novel?

 The above comment by user:195.70.48.242 at 10:53, 4 May 2005 
How can there exist a trinary star? (ie. Alpha Centauri), wouldn't that third star have a propulsion system to keep its orbit, or it would crash or fly off! Obviously, since we can have triple star systems, we can have a planet orbit two stars, especially in a wide orbit around a close binary. Talking about three-body problems, here in the Solar System, we have 8 planets, why don't they all crash into each other or fly off then? Or rather, consider the asteroid belt, where orbits are closer together... But we live in a galaxy, and there are millions of star around us... that's not a three-body problem either... 132.205.44.128 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This article received its Good Article rating on 9 March 2006 from an editor who hearkened back to a kinder, gentler era when it was not outside of norms to just simply plonk down a Good Article tag for no other reason than WP:ILIKEIT. Alas, the standards for retaining this pretty green trinket have tightened over time; in the present regime, someone unassociated with writing this article (a reviewer) should examine the article with respect to the good article criteria and, on the various standards cited, expresses up, down, or neutral sentiments, plus an aggregate sentiment, upon which retaining the pretty little trinket relies. 
By posting this remark here, I'm not suggesting that the article has gone bad or presently fails the criteria, but I am noting the absence of a review that is a hallmark of the present process, and, in the fullness of time, a review should be performed on this article. With the absence of a review, this article is a delisting candidate. Note that, for an editor to delist this article, the due-diligence of a good article review is required. Otherwise, how might a delisting editor justify his or her delisting, or offer cogent reasons why the Good Article mark should remain? In either case, anything short of a fair review is unfair to editors who contribute to this article regularly and in good faith. Drop any questions about this on my talk page. Take care — Gosgood 00:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Planets and Moons" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. The last section would benefit with more sourcing, especially for some of the claims. I would recommend going through all of the citations and updating the access dates and fixing any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there have been many years since the confirmation of the planet and its age, several stars with planets have been discovered which are older than PSR B1620-26 b. The competitors of the oldest planets orbit around stars Rho Indi, HD 142022 A and HD 164922. Can someone confirm if any planets around those stars are as old as their host star? --Artman40 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on PSR B1620-26 b. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090505060512/http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?StarCatId=pulsar&PlanetId=30 to http://www.extrasolar.net/planettour.asp?StarCatID=pulsar&PlanetID=30
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716015941/http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board5/messages/399.shtml to http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board5/messages/399.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on PSR B1620-26 b. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219075138/http://thebookofbeginnings.com/sources/10/PrimevalPlanet.pdf to http://thebookofbeginnings.com/sources/10/PrimevalPlanet.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oldest planet in our universe,age-13 billion, wow amazing  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashok haldar (talk • contribs) 10:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)