Talk:HD 28185 b

message: This isn't a term used on the web at all according to Google (0 hits), so I suppose it should be changed in case someone know exactly what method is talked about here. I noticed this while correcting spelling and grammar mistakes in the article, so I suspect the strange term is used here due to the article originally being written by a foreign Wikipedian making a sort of direct translation. I personally don't have enough experience in this field to correct the term though. -- Jugalator 23:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Doppler spectrovision"? 

message: The section "speculation" is a direct copy of text at . While this is not a copyright violation as NASA text is in the public domain, it isn't particularly good to just have a massive bunch of copied text sitting there.
The passage also seems to be confused about which object the moon would be tidally locked to - the description about sunlight implies the moon would be locked to the star rather than the planet, which is incorrect.
I'm also not entirely convinced we need quite so much outright speculation here. Chaos syndrome 09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: It's looking good, keep at it! I'm sorry to hear it was AfD'd. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: My theory, is that many life forms will 
exist on moons (earth size or smaller)
around "warm jupiters". This configuration
solves all the "problems" of the rare earth hypothesis
and tidal interaction between multiple moons creates volcanism (like on Io)
T.Neo 12:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A good place for life 

message: I would be happy to find this planet and/or it's star named. It has a significant importance since the Exoplanet raises many questions in the scientific community, especially the topic about rocky moons. On searching I found a name suggestion for the planet to be Aegina. http://www.extrasolar.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=469&sid=107f2d5375bdbc3b99fb5ef8dfeb9f82
Of course naming astronomical entities is always hard and slow and is usually decided by the International Astronomical Union (IAU). If someone in position could bring this up I, and many others would be very grateful.
Lacking any skill in Wikipedia editing I call for others of better experience and mutual interests to bring this forward as well. King Regards //Nick 81.234.194.133 (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming extrasolar planets is quite difficult to begin with.  The main reason that Bellerophon and Osiris are commonly used is because the names proposed to them became very popular and used in official setting (like news articles and NASA).  When Gliese 581 c was discovered, the name Ymir was proposed for the planet.  Though not as widely used as the other two, it is being mentioned more and more (which is why it is mentioned in the article).  However, the name "Ageina" is only shown in one reference and is not in wide use, so mentioning it on the article is not wise to do.  However, I do believe that this planet does deserve a name. — NuclearVacuum 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer and for the short explanation. My primary thought was to bring up the discussion of naming it, thrown almost out of the blue Aegina is only a suggestion. Keep up the good work on other extrasolar planets by the way. //Nick 81.234.194.133 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, you can look at my planet naming suggestions .  Its not much, but worth a look at. — NuclearVacuum 20:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for a name 

message: The radius and temperature values in the article are highly misleading. They come from the now-defunct website Extrasolar Visions, which basically takes the minimum mass of the planet and puts it through a theoretical model. Unfortunately, this is a case of garbage-in-garbage-out: the true mass of the planet is unknown, it could potentially be much higher than the minimum, and since the radius is NOT a monotonic function of planetary mass it is difficult to state even what the most likely radius is going to be. Furthermore, the composition of the planet is unknown: we do not know if it has a massive core for example, which would affect the radius.
Similarly the temperature value is a wild guess: we don't know how much energy the atmosphere reflects back into space instead of absorbing it, we do not know the greenhouse properties of the atmosphere, and we don't know how much internal heat the planet puts out (this latter factor is the major contribution to the temperature of the gas giants in our solar system). Putting these values into the infobox is misleading: this is an Encyclopaedia and we should not pretend that more is known about this planet than is actually the case. 86.171.72.213 (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find anyplace on the Extrasolar Visions web site where the apparently anonymous author explained the method used to derive either the radius or the temperature. [S]he does say the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia was used as the primary source, but the latter lists neither parameter. Without knowing how the numbers were derived, it seems awful shaky to be using them. My preference would be to use primary sources, where such are available, and leave out WAGs (however intelligent) by anonymous authors.—RJH (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radius and temperature 

message: 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. 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) 07:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: I'm curious as to why the speculation about the possibility of specifically an earth-sized moon around gas giants in habitable zone of their stars is regularly mentioned in articles about such planets. Much smaller moons would seem to be just as good candidates for life around it, would they not? I think I saw a paper concluding less than a mars sized one would certainly be sufficient, not sure how to go about digging up that reference again, but in any case, whats the reference for any particular significance of having an exactly earth-sized moon?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.77.118 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  earth mass moon? 

message: Why is there a link to a fictional moon here? 76.202.230.74 (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Yavin?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on HD 28185 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/20060713024330/http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/abs/2001/45/aah3054/aah3054.html to http://www.edpsciences.org/articles/aa/abs/2001/45/aah3054/aah3054.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929070638/http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=126 to http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=126
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified