Talk:91 Aquarii

message: This is the most common name used for the star.  Similar to why most people say "55 Cancri" over Rho-1 Cancri, etc. — NuclearVacuum 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with move: Bayer designations with superscripts are clumsy to use with Wikipedia article titles (note that a more correct rendering of the Bayer designation would be Psi1 Aquarii), the Flamsteed designation is valid. Note that the HD designation is more common than either the Bayer or Flamsteed designation however. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I tagged the semimajor in the above table from the article as dubious because Kepler's third law gives 0.85 and not 0.3. One can also see it is wrong without calculating by thinking of our Solar System. I assume it's a typo.
So, at least one of these figures must be wrong: mass star, period, and semimajor axis.
I followed the exoplanet.eu reference to http://pasj.asj.or.jp/v57/n1/570109/570109-frame.html which in turn refers to Mitchell et al. 2003 and also notes table data copied from http://obswww.unige.ch/~naef/table.html which is stale and not archived.
However, Four Substellar Companions Found Around K Giant Stars has "91 Aqr has a companion with a minimum mass of 2.9 jupiter masses, and an orbital period of 182 days" but no mention of semimajor axis. That abstract looked like a presentation summary at a conference and did not have any full article attached. 
-84user (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As can be seen below, the figure 0.3 AU is from exoplanet.eu, and they prob have access to the full paper. When applying Keplers 3rd Law one also have to take into account the stars mass, which in this case is 2.5 Suns. Keplers 3rd Law in its original form is only applicable when comparing two planets in the same solar system, but it might be remedied by dividing each side in the equation with the mass of the central star. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 0.85/2.5 = 0.34, so 0.3 is good enough. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 22:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Eeeh! Forget it! I got it upside down! The figure remains dubious. Multiply with 2.5 in order to keep the period 182 days, which makes c:a 2.1 AU, not 0.34. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 22:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the issue of the seemingly low semi-major axis value may be resolved by noting that the paper being sourced by exoplanet.eu, Raghavan et al (2006), actually lists an  value of 0.3 in their Table 2. Hence, this is a lower bound on the semi-major axis. I've updated the table accordingly. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

text: umm.. I would like to point out that if you read the exoplanet.eu article on this system.  The planet has been confirmed again recently in Jan 03 2011 at the conference " Planetary Systems Beyond the Main Sequence", Bamberg 2010 (Quirrenbach et al).  By Conference, means that proponents and opponents of 91 Aquarii b meet and have at least agreed that this exoplanet exists even if its exact nature is of debate.108.206.84.45 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious planet data 

message: {| class=wikitable	NAME	Apparent magnitude (V)	Spectral type
CCDM J23159-0905D (BD-09 6156D)	13.5	    	                      	
CCDM J23159-0905E (BD-09 6155E)	14.3	    	                      	
Dumped! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dumping place for CCDM J23159-0905DE

message: It seems pretty obvious by SIMBAD that 91 Aqr applies only to the component A in the star system. I fixed the text accordingly, but I kept info about the subsystem HD 219430BC which all (relevant) sources agree belong to the same system as 91 Aqr. I fixed the text so that 91 Aqr refers to what the former text called 91 Aqr A and so that HD 219430 B and C is used for what was formerly called B and C. Excepting the former component table, that for some confused reason inserted an extra B into the table, getting a sextuple star not the quintuple star claimed by the former text. I also mention CCDM J23159-0905 so that some of the former info about the so called components 91 Aqr D and E is still retained. 
The following problems remains:
# the References and External links list should be reviewed, 
# the above saved data about the system CCDM J23159-0905DE could maybe be put back, claiming that it is arguably an unrelated system that CCDM classifies as belonging to the same system as 91 Aqr,
# simbad identifications should be added to the infobox
# the Alcyone software link seems to be a spam link duplicating the info from SIMBAD, and some beautiful day I'm going to throw them from the surface of Earth Grrr!
Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Some'' fixes now made

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 91 Aquarii. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6630AbtJZ?url=http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html to http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080701125126/http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_search.cfm to http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_search.cfm
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) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified