Talk:HD 217107

message: I've changed the header from "planet" to "companion", because presumably a table of this sort will be useful for systems containing brown dwarfs as well as planets. I'd like to get feedback as to whether people think this is a good idea and whether we should start deploying this on other extrasolar planet/system articles, and what if anything to add/remove from it.
I'll add that I don't like the current form of the templates  and  which have been created in response to the changes in this article, the semantics are a bit weird (why does the first planet in the list get special treatment?), and the header seems unnecessary (it also is ungrammatical for single-planet systems). Not entirely sure a template is really necessary for this purpose. Chaos syndrome 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really think these templates are necessary.  They're much more complicated than simple wiki table markup, and in many cases I think they just add to the clutter on a page - I don't think they're much good where there's only one planet and the details are easily incorporated into the text.  I think we should stick with the simple table.  Worldtraveller 10:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planetary system table 

message: According to Hipparcos, the distance to HD 217107 is 19.7 pc (64.3 ly) and therefore the star's absolute magnitude is 4.70. A value that close to solar sounds unrealistic because the star is a subgiant. Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia uses a different value, 37 pc (120 ly).  Can't find the source for that value, though.--Jyril 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say generally there's little reason to doubt Hipparcos results - they are the most accurate measurements of distance for nearby stars.  HD 217107 is either still on the main sequence or only just evolving off it, and has a mass slightly less than solar, so I don't think an absolute magnitude of 4.7 is really that unrealistic.  Worldtraveller 12:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for more papers. Looks like it really is a borderline case, some sources give it a luminosity class of IV-V. According to the Geneva Group, MV = 4.7 is 0.7 mag above ZAMS for a 0.9 MS star.  The California & Carnegie group also use the Hipparcos value. I wonder what is the source of that 37 pc value. Only paper which seems to use it is this , but it isn't refereed nor it provide a source for that value. (It should be noted, however, that Hipparcos has some serious errors: for example, the distance to β Cen was calculated wrong, but that was because its companion was not taken into account.)--Jyril 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distance to HD 217107 

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) 01:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: Please do add pictures and diagrams. Do expand the text and incorporate stray links as in-line citations.Materialscientist (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential GA delisting