Talk:Gliese 581

message: The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia has the data available for the planets c and d.— JyriL talk 22:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, the order is same.— JyriL talk 16:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Data

message: A planet far more massive than the earth, orbiting a much dimmer star than the sun, in 12 and some days. 
 
Maybe it's near earth temperatures. Maybe it isn't.
Is this news? Is this accurate? Does wikipedia want to go here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.209.190 (talk • contribs) 25 April, 2007
:Actually, it IS news. I just saw it on the news here in Holland and I have read a (Dutch) article about it in the Volkskrant, a big daily newspaper here. There is talk about whether there could be live on this planet, since it is earth-like with moderate temperatures (between 0 and 40 degrees Centigrades) and the possibility of the existence of liquid water on the planet. MarioR 10:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthlike?

message: What would one see in the sky when Gliese 581 b makes a transit of the sun (Gliese 581)? Would it appear as a dot over that sun, or would it completely eclipse the sun? Our sun, of course, would appear in the constellation Cetus. GBC 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, what would it look like from 581 c? A dot. Our sun and our moon each appear to cover half a degree of arc in the sky. Gliese 581 is roughly 0.4 times as big as Sol, but only 0.07 times as far from 581 c, so it appears quite large, 2.85 degrees of arc, about 5.7 times as big as Sol seen from Earth. 581 b, 0.003 times as big as Sol, when transiting, would be about 0.03 AU from 581 c; if Neptune-sized, that means 0.05 degrees, a tenth as big as the moon seen from Earth, a sixtieth of the size of Gliese 581. (If that eccentricity figure for 581 c in the table is right, though, 581 c gets much much closer, even crossing the orbit of 581 b, so b could appear much larger in the sky shortly before c's doomsday.) Also, if b is rocky rather than gaseous, it would be visually smaller still, say about 2/3 that size. Going to render it? Kaleja 18:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraterrestrial skies

message: 88 days, not too shoddy, right?
:I make it 60 days (365 * 20.5 / (5*5*5)) but at any rate, I haven't gotten my warp drive working yet. Kaleja 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warp 5 

message: The table on the Gliese 581 page gives a very high eccentricity of 0.3 for c's orbit; the page for Gliese 581 c gives eccentricity 0. Eccentricity 0.3 for a semimajor axis 0x 0.073 AU puts perihelion at about 0.039 AU if I got my math right; this is inside the orbit of Gliese 581 b, so I'm guessing that Gliese 581 c is more right than this page. Anyone have more info? Kaleja 18:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Udry et al. give the choice between 0.0 and 0.16 for e_c (Table 1 on p. 4 in the preprint). Are we going to describe the circular case, the eccentric case or both? —xyzzyn 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The .3 came from me, but it was wrong.  But it looks like .16 +/-.07 is right, that is the same on exoplanets encyclopedia.  Sorry for the error, I was trying to sync up the page with 581 c and I was usign data someone else had posted.  Looks like it is all straightened out now. Also it appears all the data matche's exoplante encyclopedia, should we cite them as the source?  I think we should cite something.  Rich.lewis 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the data from the Udry et al. paper (with some rounding). We already cite it. —xyzzyn 23:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eccentricity 

message: I can't find any estimated age of the star or planetary system. Age is of course relevant when considering the chances of life on the planet.
:Yes, this is very important.  In particular, it could take a billion years for a red dwarf star to 'settle down.'  Yesterday, while compiling information for this article, I ran across the statement (in a reliable source) that Gliese 581 is 4.3 billion years old.  I don't remember where I found it, but I can probably find it again. Vegasprof 00:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the age on exoplanets encyclopedis here, , but they reference a source article from the journal of astronomy and astrophysics.  However, only the abstract is available without a subscription.  The original source is cited as "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets, V. A 14 Earth-masses planet orbiting HD 4308" S. Udry1, et al.  I can't verify the original source so I just added a citation to expolanets encyclopedia.  Is that good enough?  Should we cite the original source, even though we can't verify the citation (without a subscription to the journal)?  I guess citing the exoplanets encyclopedia is better than nothing.  Rich.lewis 16:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the figure 4.3 billion years in russian wiki. The source of it is absolutely uncertain. 2 bln years? What is this article you pointed out?--Beaber (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the system ? 

message: There seems to be some question about whether this is or is not the first exoplanet in a habitable zone.  No other examples are listed in the habitable zone article or any other reference I've seen yet.  I think a sentence saying "this is notable because ..." should be as simple as possible, and if extra qualifications like "low mass" or "rocky" are necessary we should know what the "high mass" or "gaseous" examples are.  24.20.137.228 04:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only "low mass" planet in a habitable zone? 

message: This article lists three planets, 581b, 581c, and 581d.  Why was "a" skipped? Nik42 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 581a is skipped, as it can also mean the star itself. Anarchist42 21:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay.  What a strange convention.  On a related note, are the letters assigned in order of discovery rather than distance? Nik42 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Order of discovery. Sagittarian Milky Way 01:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to 581a? 

message: Are there any spectra of Gliese 581 available from which we can get an empirical value, as opposed to assuming the star is a blackbody (an approximation that isn't too good for cool stars)? Chaos syndrome 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak wavelength? 

message: The first paragraph, as of this date, includes the phrase, "It is about two degrees north of beta Librae . . ."
I've seen locations of celestial bodies described in this way before and have never understood what that meant. I decided to try to make a link in the above phrase as a way of educating myself, but was unable to discover (within Wikipedia, at least) an adequate explanation to which I could link. I found the Celestial pole article, which provides some context but doesn't provide a satisfying layman's explanation for how a celestial body could be described as being "north" of another celestial body, and what the "degrees" are. I assume that it has something to do with the axis around which earth-bound observers perceive the heavens to be rotating, but that's an assumption on my part and represents the extent of my education on the subject.
Part of my problem is that I don't have an adequate search term. I don't know what that system of notation is called, so I can't search for it by name. Can someone out there with a knowledge of astronomy help me (and, likely, other readers)? Perhaps Wikipedia already has an article on this subject but I've been unable to find it. —CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'North of' means in the same direction to the north as geographical along the sky, pointing towards the north celestial pole. BlueEarth (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North? 

message: I've just been doing a bit of research into Gliese 581 and have found that the star is also referred to as Wolf 562, so why is this alternate name not listed in this article? I know that all other star articles list all the other names, but I don't see this one here, so why not? (for confirmation of the name check out this page: ) --Hibernian (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok since on one has said anything for ages I've just gone ahead and done it, because I'm pretty sure about it. If it is for some reason incorrect, then please say so. Also it would be an idea to turn Wolf 562 into a redirect to Gliese 581. --Hibernian (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like names which give the constellation. I think Wikipedians like them too, c.f., mu Arae which is usually called HD 16something in the astronometric world. This one is HO Librae, so, I'd prefer that. Otherwise, if there is a cartographical preference for Wolf 562, then point out where it's used. Maybe these aliases should just be deleted and left to the starbox... -- Zimriel (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the Star? 

message: The Astrometry info box gives the distance as 19.9 ± 0.3 ly, whereas the opening paragraph gives the distance as 20.5 light years. Which, if either, is correct? Can someone please correct it.HumphreyW (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The distance in infobox as 19.9 light years is the right one, I will change it. BlueEarth (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now the infobox says 20.3 ± 0.3 ly, and the opening paragraph has "about 22 ly".  If it is between 20.0 and 20.6, that is not "about 22".  If you had to round it off to an integer you'd surely go with 20, right?  Direvus (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance discrepancy 

message: the gap between the outer two planets is significant enough that under the Titus-Bode Resonance Law (which essentially says that the distance of a planet from its primary should be twice that of the next inner planet, with some adjustments for mass) there should be a fourth planet between the two outer planets, and which also puts it smack dab in the middle of the habitable zone. As it is as yet undetected, this could be a terrestrial earth-like planet, if it exists. Is there any research out there we can find that would support or disprove this possibility?75.67.80.68 (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be an asteroid field. Like the one we have that between Jupiter and Mars. HumphreyW (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible fourth planet in Titus-Bode Resonance? 

message: :I do not want to get into any war either, I just wanted to see a helpful caption, which was then supplied. However I now see the shown phase of the blue Planet b is not correct: it should be nearly full and not a half crescent. Its size is also exaggerated (in reality it would appear smaller than a pixel) but that could be mentioned in the caption (enlarged for clarity maybe?).
:Why not discuss this and other artist images in Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Image Review? It is linked as a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy but has seen no use after 2007. I have added this note to increase its visibility. 84user (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An RFC over a content dispute? Seriously? Get over it and get on with improving things.— V = I * R (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The image is less ghastly and awful than this one, which has an even worse depiction of lighting. As for the apparent size of Gliese 581 b, on the scale of the system and assuming the planet is roughly Neptune-sized (not an unreasonable assumption given the similarity to Gliese 436 b), a visible disk is in fact perfectly reasonable from the vicinity of e. A larger size than a pixel is also plausible for planet c depending on where it is in its orbit. This would require that planet c is the one that appears furthest to the right. The real problem is that in reality the brightness of Gliese 581 itself would likely drown everything else out apart from the nearby planet and possibly planet b. It wouldn't appear nearly so dim and red from close up - the star is roughly the temperature of an incandescent lightbulb (using this as a reference), and would thus have a somewhat similar colour and surface brightness. Icalanise (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The large bottom left planet simply cannot be b and the blue half-phase planet be c from the geometry of the orbits. Superior planets always show a gibbous phase, never a half or crescent. However the geometry works if the large planet is meant to be c and the blue half phase planet b. I have boldly changed the caption, in the hope the error was a typo. The left to right order now makes more sense: from the 5-Earth mass c at .07 AU from the star one could plausibly view the 15+ Earth mass (Neptune-like?) blue planet at 0.04 AU at half-phase; one could then see the distant d as fainter than the nearer e. The relative sizes are still not correct but closer to a possible reality. The "true" relative brightness is of course impossible to display on monitors, see What color are the stars? and Blackbody colors for why. The chroma of the image star is probably a bit too red but Ok for artistic license I guess; the star colours link gives this shade for Gl 725 A (another M3V red dwarf). 84user (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your assignment of the bottom left planet as c as it is clearly intended to be e judging by the description at the source page and given the Mercury-like appearance they are giving to the world. Furthermore your assignment makes the apparent size of planet e much too large, given the phase indicates it is on the far side of the sun from the viewer. The original assignment that the foreground planet is e makes the phase angle of b wrong (given the ratio of orbital radii, the phase angle of b as seen from e cannot exceed about 49 degrees, or 45 degrees if you rederive the orbital radii using Kepler's laws and the orbital periods to improve on the quoted precision of one significant figure!). The original caption states the large blue planet is in fact d, but this is ridiculous due to apparent diameter. Don't any of the space artists who produce such images have access to a decent raytracer to check the illumination??? I have thus been bold and removed the image entirely. Icalanise (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I made a typo in the description.  I called the planet shown planet c, when it is supposed to be e.  I fixed the type, sorry for that. — NuclearVacuum 15:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Well the image doesn't really work well as a view from any of Gliese 581's planets. The blue half-phase planet means that the foreground planet cannot be e, as the phase implies it orbits interior to the foreground planet. The blue crescent doesn't make sense as planet e (which is likely too small to be a gas giant), so assigning the foreground planet as b doesn't work too well either. Assigning the barren rocky world as being c or d also don't work well, as planet formation theory predicts planets like b (and therefore likely also the planets orbiting beyond it) formed in the volatile-rich regions beyond the ice line and thus should have a substantial icy component. And sad to say, this is one of the better artistic renditions put out with an exoplanets press release. Icalanise (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: I'm an avid amateur astronomer and it brings tears to my eyes to see a picture at the bottom of the star system like the one for ours. It's amazing how our knowledge has grown. Looking at the picture, I honestly stopped feeling all alone out here in this corner of the universe. So, thank you to everyone who's let us understand this - including folks here on wikipedia. - Josh Shahryar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.80.204 (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank You 

message: EPE has updated e, saying the orbit has changed and mass and stuff. I'm not sure what the #>m># means... so I'm leaving someone else to update it... Syntheticalconnections (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gliese 581 e update 

message: "...Gliese 581 c orbits just inside of the habitable zone of its parent star" and "Gliese 581 d ... orbits just inside of the habitable zone of its star": Surely they cannot both be "just inside of" if c orbits at 0.07 AU and d at 0.22 AU (that's ~21 million km further out).  Especially as Gliese 581 d says "It was originally thought that Gliese 581 d orbits outside the habitable zone of its star. However, in 2009 the original discovery team revised its original estimate of the planet's orbital parameters, finding that it orbits closer to its star than originally believed. They concluded that the planet is within the habitable zone where liquid water could exist."
Then there's "Gliese 581 c ... is notable as it is the planet with lowest minimum mass yet discovered in the habitable zone of another star, making it the most earthlike exoplanet found to date.[18]" compared to "Gliese 581 e, ... at an estimated minimum mass of 1.9 Earths, is currently the lowest mass exoplanet identified around a normal star".  Either c is in the habitale zone or it isn't and maybe it is the least massive or it isn't (c = 5.36 – 10.4 M⊕, e = 1.94 – 3.1 M⊕)
The individual planet articles seem better.  87.115.207.175 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory? 

message: Chart labelled 'The Gliese 581 planetary system orbits.' (:File:GJ581orbits.svg) is now out of date, as its missing both Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g. I don't have ability to update, haven't seen any new ones yet. I considered taking it down, since its a little confusing, but decided partial visual info was better than noting.  replacing this chart would be very helpful. Jvol (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added g as a circular orbit. f would require a larger scale, better to make a second image? WELL, more care is needed to confirm the old image has the most up-to-date orbital parameters as well, since I just added to it! Tom Ruen (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for adding g, though I would prefer it being given a non-circular orbit so that the orbits of g and d do not intersect. I doubt intersecting orbits would be very stable, and the NASA article's graphics  also gives non-intersecting orbits for the two planets. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks Icalanise. I knew it was trouble to just drop in the new planet's orbit radius! Tom Ruen (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  For now I have updated the diagram to the 6-planet solution in Vogt et al. (2010). This is at least a better representation of the system than just dropping the circular orbit of planet g into the 4-planet solution. The full diagram incorporating the orbit of planet f (which is too wide to fit on the current diagram) is on my to-do list. Icalanise (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Given the status of g/f has been moved to "unconfirmed", and old 4-body orbital chart restored, it was confusing, so I added BOTH orbital sets, 4-body, and 6-body for comparison. I also added back the old 4-body parameters, although the section ought to be reorganized to better explain these two depictions. Tom Ruen (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  orbital chart needs replacement/update to include  Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g 

message: I removed this section, link didn't get to a clear source, and the only search matches I found were blogs quoting wikipedia! Tom Ruen (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Message from Earth

message: The opening paragraphs describe planets c and d as Venus-like and Mars-like respectively. This is very speculative. There is no particular reason to assume that these planets are anything like Venus and Mars, or even that they are terrestrial in nature. They could easily have compositions dominated by ices rather than rock. This would make planet c completely unlike the extremely water-poor planet Venus, and provide d with a much more substantial atmosphere than Mars has. Just because a planet is located in an equivalent region of space doesn't mean it is an analogue of what we have in the same part of our Solar System. Icalanise (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: From what people know about planets, we are going to at first assume the way they are. Should >c space travel be possible, one day we may know we were wrong. But without much knowledge, I think it's fine to keep the "Venus-like". "It is suspected to have a runaway green house effect, like Venus." might work better? And the term for habitable planets is "Earth-like", I see nothing wrong with that. The "Mars-like" though, could be described as a cold rocky planet. atomic7732 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is we do not know that these planets are rocky, so "Mars-like" is extremely dubious. Icy composition is probably more reasonable given the planets' large masses and the obvious signatures of planet migration in the system architecture. That would result in planet d being nothing like Mars, but more like a less-frigid version of Ganymede. Icalanise (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Those terms are the only way most laymen would understand what the paragraph is talking about.  I think they are fine the way they are, but Atomic7732's versions would also be acceptable.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar system analogues 

message: I didn't see this data anywhere, it's rather strange. Can it be explained somehow? It would be very interesting to add this information to article (if its possible, of course).--Beaber (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and visible stellar magnitude: 10,58 m (1982) → 10,57 m (1985) и 10,57 m (1985) → 10,56 m (1990). It becomes brighter, what's now (2010)?--Beaber (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotational period of star 

message: Both are unconfirmed on the EPE. atomic7732 23:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  f and g retracted? 

message: Please provide a source for the epoch JD 2453152 for the Mayor et al. (2009) orbits. The arXiv version lists some JD in Table 2 (actually Table 1 in the released paper due to a misnumbering in the preprint), but it remains unclear to what these refer, and none of them equals the value given in the orbit plot.--SiriusB (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The orbital solution does not state an epoch and is in any case from a Keplerian model which does not include effects that would modify the orbits over time. The values of T in the table are the periastron times of the planets. Obviously it is necessary to choose some point in time in order to depict the planetary positions. For the various orbit diagrams I have uploaded to Commons I use the epoch from the source when one is available, but here the choice is an arbitrary one chosen to be fairly close to the start of the HARPS dataset for this star. Icalanise (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for JD 2453152 for the four-planets solution 

message: The page makes a simple error i think i am right in saying in the use of parsecs (20) over light years, a factor of 3.26x which makes a difference as to whether i can beam myself there in this lifetime without resorting to breaking the speed of light, so its relevance is actually quite large.   Of course waiting to transfer from 581c to 581g probably takes 3 lifetimes so I suppose it can be forgiven.
Mythole (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The page gives the distance as "20.3 ± 0.3 ly", followed by "(6.2 ± 0.1 pc)", with ly linking to Light-year and pc linking to Parsec. Are you seeing something different? I have just checked the figures using  which gives a trigonometric parallax of 0.1578 (column note 7) arc seconds. This yields a distance in light years of 3.26 / 0.1578 = 20.659. The SIMBAD page has a similar parallax of 159.52 milliarcseconds or 0.15952 arcseconds. That yields 3.26 / 0.15952 = 20.436 light years. Each parallax has an error of about one percent, so 20.3 plus or minus 0.3 seems a reasonable fit with both these sources. -84user (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance and travel time to Gliese 581 

message: Why are these crossed out? In the gliese 581 g article it also says this. The source listed is an opinion and only doubts the fact that they do not exist, there is no actual proof these planets do not exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.100.196 (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't really any proof they exist either. atomic7732 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GLIESE 581 g and f crossed out 

message: The article made several mentions of Gliese 581 being a "star system", however I find no mention of any stellar companions in its neighbourhood.  I assume some may be confusing star system with planetary system a this lack of distinction which can be misleading. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star System ? 

message: The existence of Gliese 581 G and F have not yet been confirmed (In fact, they seem to be in the process of being disproved), yet the articles for the planetary companions of Gliese 581 are written as if their existence is without doubt.  This needs to be fixed, and future edits that support this viewpoint without evidence need to be blocked.
VelociraptorBlade (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: g seems to be somewhat better supported by new data (see "misnamed" thread below), but you're right that f and g should not be considered to be confirmed in any WP article until there is scientific consensus on the issue. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Here's the link to Vogt's new paper. He revises g's minimum mass downward to 2.2 Earth masses, but does not seem to defend f's existence himself. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections need to be made to the corresponding planetary articles 

message: I came across this article from Zeta Tucanae, and it states that Gliese 581 has a debris disk… in 2009. Was this never noticed, or what? I'm not entirely sure how to translate the data into something meaningful (infrared excesses to semi-major axes, mainly), but this going apparently entirely unnoticed by wikipedia is a bit odd. Has this been invalidated at some point? ShellfaceTheStrange (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved! A debris disk around an old M-dwarf is a rarity-and-a-half. Gliese 581 continues to surprise! ShellfaceTheStrange (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debris Disk? 

message: Three planets (b,c,e), the rest is just stellar activity.  77.57.25.250 (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why kill one HZ planet when you can kill ALL the HZ planets? 

message: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/07/02/science.1253253
Time to update the page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:4800:5E0:9167:112D:758D:9C9D (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the entire planetary system section needs a substantial rewrite. As it stands, the reader has to get past two outdated representations of the system to get to the current listing of basic mass/orbit properties. My inclination is to get rid of the first two orbitboxes and discuss candidates d, g and f in the text only, while retaining the activity-corrected orbital solution of Robertson (2014) and moving it somewhere near the start of the section. Overview first, then history. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: This planet does not exist

message: I propose that the articles Gliese 581 d, Gliese 581 f and Gliese 581 g are merged into this article. While the case for having an article for these objects (particularly the habitable zone candidates) would be clear if they were thought to exist, it now seems that all three of these detections were actually the result of stellar activity. It therefore makes sense to discuss them as part of the history of planet claims in the Gliese 581 system, but having separate articles gives undue weight to the now-disputed planetary interpretation of these radial velocity signals. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like Vulcan...? ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which has a far longer history to it that led towards a fundamental revision to basic theories of physics, as opposed to the exoplanet claims which have been around for less than a decade and haven't really overturned anything. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Length of time has no bearing on whether a subject is worthy of an article on Wikipedia.  Vulcan did not lead to general relativity, the development of general relativity theory merely obviated the need for Vulcan to explain Mercury's orbit. In just the same way the more accurate modelling of G581's magnetic activity removes the need for G581 g etc to explain the signals in the RV plot. Whether a planet is used to explain the peculiarities of an orbit or peculiarities of an RV plot is neither here nor there.  They are still both postulations since proven to be false. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok enough splitting hairs, do you have a point or are you just being pedantic for pedantry's sake? 77.57.25.250 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting hairs? You were the one saying they were completely different! The point is obvious, clearly there are cases where things that were later shown to be false have an article devoted to them. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 05 Jul 2014 

message: *Support. Reasons: d, f, and g remain unconfirmed; GA status of target parent article; and post-merge article prose size remains within normal parameters, i.e. > 60 kB. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like Vulcan...? ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which has a far longer history to it that led towards a fundamental revision to basic theories of physics, as opposed to the exoplanet claims which have been around for less than a decade and haven't really overturned anything. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Length of time has no bearing on whether a subject is worthy of an article on Wikipedia.  Vulcan did not lead to general relativity, the development of general relativity theory merely obviated the need for Vulcan to explain Mercury's orbit. In just the same way the more accurate modelling of G581's magnetic activity removes the need for G581 g etc to explain the signals in the RV plot. Whether a planet is used to explain the peculiarities of an orbit or peculiarities of an RV plot is neither here nor there.  They are still both postulations since proven to be false. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok enough splitting hairs, do you have a point or are you just being pedantic for pedantry's sake? 77.57.25.250 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting hairs? You were the one saying they were completely different! The point is obvious, clearly there are cases where things that were later shown to be false have an article devoted to them. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Given the above discussion pretty clearly leans towards support, I am proceeding with the merge in the following order. 77.57.25.250 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress

message: Couple of image requests:
* Orbit diagram for the 3-planet solution (similar to figure S6 in Robertson et al. 2014).
* Image of the debris disc - it is noted as resolved in Lestrade et al. (2012), so are there any images we can use here?
77.57.25.250 (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image requests 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:Gliese 581 e -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|Gliese 581 d}}"

message: The planets in this GJ 581 system are on of those that will get a common names next year. But the website created for this very task (http://nameexoworlds.org/#planets) has some slightly different data!
GJ 581 b,c on the website are pretty much identical to the data of those planets in the article (only some really minor differences in masses and orbital parameters exist). I thought that GJ 581 d on the website might be identical to our GJ 581 e here, and just has a different identifier because the previously "detected" planet d was a spuke. But actually the attributes don't fit. So either the article or nameexoworlds.org is wrong. --Sirius3100 (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: correction: The planets in this GJ 581 system are on of those that may get common names next year. --Sirius3100 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of planets in this article and on nameexoworlds.org not identical 

message: It looks like it's at least arguable that Gliese 581d might be real after all: see 
:
and then this rebuttal:
:
but also the response to that from the authors of the first-cited paper:
: 
-- The Anome (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't think d exists, based on that last-word response you've just cited. My thought at the time (scroll up) was for a separate page for the controversy. I repeat this request - focused on d. It's sparked a lot of news, sometimes front-page news. --Zimriel (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gliese 581d real again? 

message: The previously dubious exoplanet GJ 581 d is back, new studies how that the plant is likely to exist.http://astronomynow.com/2015/03/09/reanalysis-of-data-suggests-habitable-planet-gj581d-really-does-exist/ Because of this I feel that it is approprte to demerge and redo the "Histroy of detections," due to this new evidence. No word on GJ 581 g's existence. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a peer-reviewed paper that states this, then by all means do it. However, astronomy news sources are notorious for being factually inaccurate way too often and giving undue prominence to exoplanets, so I wouldn't trust a news source with this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And about you saying it is not trustable, it's exactly the opposite as even this article doesn't extrapolate into saying something else about planets f and g. Link to the paper, as it seems to me, having read, it is a technical comment: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6226/1080.2.abstract  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.174.249 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , Well, I can't argue with a paper. However, I just read the paper, and it does not seem to definitively state that the planet does exist either, but rather seems to state that the planet may exist. I still don't believe that an unconfirmed candidate (aside from the extremely rare exception such as Alpha Centauri Bb) exoplanet deserves an article of its own, and believe that, until the planet is confirmed, such information is better suited for the Gliese 581 article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to 'De-merge' Gliese 581 d due to new evidence proving its existence. 

message: The article on Gliese 581 e is pretty small, and is unlikely to expand in the future, so it would be better to simply merge it. MartinZ02 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never understood the logic of merging articles that are slow to grow. What evidence do you have about what's likely to happen in the future? It's an inconvenience to both readers and editors to remove articles (especially based on such premonitions). The cost of doing so outweighs the benefits (are there any?).   — Aldaron • T/C   19:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article will probably not grow much because there is isn't much to write about the subject. By merging the article, we can have all the content in the same article, instead of having the it divided between several ones. —MartinZ02 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

text: And what are the costs in doing this? —MartinZ02 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Keep. While there are some pretty pointless exoplanet stubs, this doesn't seem to be one of them.  The parent star is a substantial article, even though much of it is discussing exoplanet discoveries, and the addition of half a dozen more articles would make for quite an essay. The biggest problem I see is fitting in all the planetboxes as well as a starbox. I'd be happy to see you try and judge it on the results, maybe better than I'm imagining. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Gliese 581 e]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gliese 581. 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://www.webcitation.org/68uUsn7yC?url=http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl%20581 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68uUsn7yC?url=http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl%20581 to http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023075235/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070424/new_planet_070424/20070424?hub=SciTech to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070424/new_planet_070424/20070424?hub=SciTech
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) 17:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gliese 581. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://exoplanet.eu/star.php?st=Gl+581
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100604044125/http%3A//cc.joensuu.fi/%7Etniemi/starmaps/GJ581.png to http://cc.joensuu.fi/~tniemi/starmaps/GJ581.png
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070617225754/http://gnews.wustl.edu/gn131/gliese581c.htm to http://gnews.wustl.edu/gn131/gliese581c.htm
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) 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)