Talk:Tau Ceti

message: This recently added section is unsourced and appears to be composed of trivia. The topic of Tau Ceti in fiction is already an article, which is also unsourced and full of trivia. As the star and science fiction appear to be the only common themes, I think the subject can be summarized in a single sentence and the content of the section can be moved to the other article with little impact here. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In fiction" is just trivia. 

message: It has asteroids and comets nearby,so a habitable planet may be bombarded by  asteroids and comets.
--Alexrybak (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's true of the Earth as well.—RJH (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the point the poster was making was, if there is a planet in the "habitable zone," a bombardment of other bodies could bring the organic molecules that hypothetically could 'spark' life to develop. 104.169.35.251 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life 

message: News in France emerging about discovery of 5 planets, including one in habitable zone. News well sourced, with couple of scientists involved being quoted, and name of Journal given in the news source that will publish the discovery.--Exsaol (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to add this info to the later sections of the article, which now contradict the lede. this will take some work. also, i placed a new ref in english. this is better, though if someone feels also having a french language ref here is good, they can add it back. very exciting. I anticipate they will each get their own article, or at least the goldilocks planet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planets-discovery 

message: What's a more meaningful unit in common usage?  Saying "x hs of observation" isn't very informative and should have a parenthetical reference in commonly used time units. 69.243.13.102 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hectoseconds? 

message: Sounds like another Richontaban fake star name flying around!! Verification please. Dead links won't suffice! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird-looking name. Most pages that contain that name and are high on the Google ranking are references of fiction or Wikipedia mirrors. There are, however, this and notably this, "Patrick Moore's Data Book of Astronomy and this book that include it as an alternative name. So, it actually appears to be true! --JorisvS (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, those sources are not independent or authoritative -- they have probably picked up and perpetuated Wikipedia hoaxes (the Moore so-called Data Book is a known offender in this regard). I agree with Rursus that it looks like one of the fake names we have weeded out in the past. I am removing it unless some authoritative source can be found. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Looking back through the changelog, I see that the name was introduced in 2006 October by an anonymous user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/168.223.11.198 who had not edited before, but who went on to tinker with other star name data. So, yes, I think a hoaxer. Skeptic2 (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same author made some changes to the List of stars in Cetus article, some of which were still in place. I could not confirm them, so I pulled them out. Those constellation lists are poorly sourced and often in error. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Well spotted. I agree with your changes. Incidentally, the IP prefix 168.223.11 is the same as that used by the troll Richontaban, as mentioned by Rursus above.Skeptic2 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it should be kept in the lead like that, though. --JorisvS (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Durre menthor?

message: An anonymous editor added data for a sixth planet to a system in which there are five suspected planets. Can the data be reconciled? Praemonitus (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to remediate the issue by merging candidate planets f & g, which were linked to the same page. Praemonitus (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six planets in a five planet system? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tau Ceti. 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/20110628175616/http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm to http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722110031/http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0218habitable.shtml to http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0218habitable.shtml
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) 20:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At phys.org, at arXiv. 4 planets are confirmed. --mfb (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the study confirms e & f,  finds g & h, and refutes b, c, d. I think we should update the article with the new data and flag the first three as "probably disproven". Frankly, at this point, all I'd be willing to put money on is that there is a planetary system. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like e and f are clearly confirmed, but I'm not sure what is going on closer to the star. --mfb (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Can we make it more clear and in subsequent exoplanet discoveries, the method of detection, whether radial velocity or transit? This will help clarify the resulting data for casual readers: i.e., Since transit photometry measurements have yet to be made successfully for Tau Ceti, any actual radii of its exoplanets is a rough estimate. Kortoso  (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Transit photometry measurements are not likely since TC's relatively low rotational velocity measurements may indicate that Tau Ceti is being viewed from nearly the direction of its pole.Kortoso  (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New RV measurement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Tau Ceti. 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/20060831111152/http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/Overview/ to http://www.mtwilson.edu/hk/Overview/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012151613/http://exoplanet.eu/list_no.html to http://exoplanet.eu/list_no.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929115311/http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/seti/seti_history_05.html to http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/seti/seti_history_05.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224211320/http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6123 to http://media.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6123
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824164259/http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/taucet.html to http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/taucet.html
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) 11:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An IP editor is repeatedly changing the article to change the spectral class of Tau Ceti from G8 to K1. The reference we have cited (and my own textbooks) specify G8. Anyone know what's going on here? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. They're practically the same class, but better to stick with the reference. Praemonitus (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at 3RR, and the editor isn't responding to talk page (here or their own), or edit comments. He's also fiddling with K-type main-sequence star and G-type main-sequence star to enforce his changes. I've reported him to WP:ANI/3RR, but not getting any action there (what, do they think it's a weekend or something? :-). Tarl N. (discuss) 01:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I reverted the last, but I'll hold off now until the report is resolved. Praemonitus (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked, so hopefully they'll notice their talk page when they next try to edit. Thanks, Tarl N. (discuss) 02:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that doesn't work, they could always semi-protect the article for a while. I went looking for a source for the K1 class, but the nearest I found was NSTARS which shows G8.5V. Praemonitus (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at their edit history, I found a comment that suggests the editor believes mass and spectral class are directly related by a precise formula. So presumably what we're seeing is WP:OR, and mistaken. The IP has been blocked for a couple of days, which should lead the editor to look at their talk page. Hopefully we'll see a reaction there. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spectral class, G8 vs K1? 

message: New paper An Integrated Analysis with Predictions on the Architecture of the τ Ceti Planetary System,
Including a Habitable Zone Planet https://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.14675.pdf 2600:8804:4904:8A00:4D68:99B3:D01E:254B (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: The redirect Tau Ceit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Tau Ceit]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]