Talk:Gliese 436

message: == Merger proposal: Gliese 436 c ==
Since the planet Gliese 436 c has been retracted, it seems like overkill to have an entire article dedicated to the properties of a planet that is not currently thought to exist: the matter could be more concisely addressed on this page (Gliese 436). 131.111.8.104 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Article: Not that I am stating that "planet c" 100% exists, I do believe it should keep its article.  Even though this planet has been retracted, the ideas of it should still be explained and shown.  This can be a similar story to Epsilon Eridani c (witch is not confirmed, but still has an article).  As long as there is information to back up the claims of this planet, there is really no problems with this article remaining an article. — NuclearVacuum 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that with Eps Eri c the data indicates that a planet might be there, though not good enough to state it for certain. Note that Eps Eri c has not yet been disproven or retracted. Since the authors have retracted Gliese 436 c (plus other studies have put severe limits on the existence of such a planet ), it seems that the evidence isn't even good enough to claim that there might be a planet there. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, what about the article "Upsilon Andromedae e"? — NuclearVacuum 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another article ripe for a merger methinks. 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge: On second thought, let's merge the pages.  I believe I can do it for you all.  Just give me a few minutes and it should be done.  If it isn't right, then change it back. — NuclearVacuum 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Strongly disagree Putting it in the planetbox and giving the planet an image is giving far too much attention to an object that does not exist (at least, as far as is known at the current time). For example, we have an entire article about the supposed intra-Mercurian planet Vulcan in our solar system, but we do not include it in the list of planets in our solar system nor do we put artist's impressions and size comparisons into articles about the solar system, for the simple reason that the planet in question does not exist. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the disagrement by 131.111.8.96. There's no good reason to retain the orbital parameters for the fictional 'c'. It may prove confusing in the future if and when additional components are detected. The current mention seems sufficient.—RJH (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the two editors above.  Given that the planet has been retracted, putting it in the planetbox is confusing and best avoided. Spacepotato (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, yes.  We would not mention Vulcan or Theia in the Solar system's list.  But there is a BIG difference between these planets and the one in the Gliese 436 system, vision.  With our technology within out system, we could and would have discovered the existence of these planets centuries ago.  But when it comes to extrasolar planets, how can we be sure?  Sure, this planet may not exist and I am making an ass of myself, here.  But since we can't even take a Cassini-Huygens image of any of these planets for decades and decades, who is to say that this planet should not be mentioned in this box? — NuclearVacuum 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing a critical difference between Gliese 436 c and Epsilon Eridani c: that is the difference between "unconfirmed" and "disproven". In the case of Epsilon Eridani c, there is evidence which suggests the planet is there, however more evidence is needed to fully confirm or disprove the planet hypothesis. In the case of Gliese 436 c, there is in fact evidence against its existence, and the authors who wrote the paper now say that it is now non-existent. Similarly in the case of MACHO-1997-BLG-41, which you seem equally insistent on putting a planetbox for a non-existent planet: the planet has been disproven - it has been shown that the data are explained better by a hypothesis which does not invoke a planet. By all means add unconfirmed planets to the planetbox: I have no objections to this. On the other hand, planets for which no-one is claiming there is evidence for (such as Gliese 436 c), or have been actively disproven (such as the planet candidate in the lens system of MACHO-1997-BLG-41) do not deserve entry: surely the boxes should represent the current state of knowledge of the system, not be a catalogue of observational errors. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The retracted planet, c should not be mentioned in the planetbox. This is giving wrong information undue weight. This is not piltdown man, having survived decades in the scientific fora. The current in text description is sufficient for the purposes of providing information, while at the same not not misleading people to believe that there's an actual planet c, if they skimmed the article by infobox. 70.55.85.114 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: This seems to be a very tentative hypothesis at present - unlike the first time round, no-one's claimed a period for the planet, just placed upper limits on the period and mass. For this reason, I've removed the planet from the orbitbox and turned the material about the second planet into its own subsection to clearly delineate the known and unconfirmed components of the system. Icalanise (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gliese 436 c 

message: Since the planet Gliese 436 c has been retracted, it seems like overkill to have an entire article dedicated to the properties of a planet that is not currently thought to exist: the matter could be more concisely addressed on this page (Gliese 436). 131.111.8.104 (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Article: Not that I am stating that "planet c" 100% exists, I do believe it should keep its article.  Even though this planet has been retracted, the ideas of it should still be explained and shown.  This can be a similar story to Epsilon Eridani c (witch is not confirmed, but still has an article).  As long as there is information to back up the claims of this planet, there is really no problems with this article remaining an article. — NuclearVacuum 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that with Eps Eri c the data indicates that a planet might be there, though not good enough to state it for certain. Note that Eps Eri c has not yet been disproven or retracted. Since the authors have retracted Gliese 436 c (plus other studies have put severe limits on the existence of such a planet ), it seems that the evidence isn't even good enough to claim that there might be a planet there. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, what about the article "Upsilon Andromedae e"? — NuclearVacuum 19:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another article ripe for a merger methinks. 131.111.8.104 (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge: On second thought, let's merge the pages.  I believe I can do it for you all.  Just give me a few minutes and it should be done.  If it isn't right, then change it back. — NuclearVacuum 23:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: Gliese 436 c 

message: Planet "c" should still be mentioned in both the star's article, and in the system's planetbox.  Because this planet has enough information on itself and could make a sizable article on its own, having it in the planetbox and having a size picture of it is OK and allowed and perfect to describe how far the discoverers went on describing the retracted planet. — NuclearVacuum 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree Putting it in the planetbox and giving the planet an image is giving far too much attention to an object that does not exist (at least, as far as is known at the current time). For example, we have an entire article about the supposed intra-Mercurian planet Vulcan in our solar system, but we do not include it in the list of planets in our solar system nor do we put artist's impressions and size comparisons into articles about the solar system, for the simple reason that the planet in question does not exist. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the disagrement by 131.111.8.96. There's no good reason to retain the orbital parameters for the fictional 'c'. It may prove confusing in the future if and when additional components are detected. The current mention seems sufficient.—RJH (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the two editors above.  Given that the planet has been retracted, putting it in the planetbox is confusing and best avoided. Spacepotato (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, yes.  We would not mention Vulcan or Theia in the Solar system's list.  But there is a BIG difference between these planets and the one in the Gliese 436 system, vision.  With our technology within out system, we could and would have discovered the existence of these planets centuries ago.  But when it comes to extrasolar planets, how can we be sure?  Sure, this planet may not exist and I am making an ass of myself, here.  But since we can't even take a Cassini-Huygens image of any of these planets for decades and decades, who is to say that this planet should not be mentioned in this box? — NuclearVacuum 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are missing a critical difference between Gliese 436 c and Epsilon Eridani c: that is the difference between "unconfirmed" and "disproven". In the case of Epsilon Eridani c, there is evidence which suggests the planet is there, however more evidence is needed to fully confirm or disprove the planet hypothesis. In the case of Gliese 436 c, there is in fact evidence against its existence, and the authors who wrote the paper now say that it is now non-existent. Similarly in the case of MACHO-1997-BLG-41, which you seem equally insistent on putting a planetbox for a non-existent planet: the planet has been disproven - it has been shown that the data are explained better by a hypothesis which does not invoke a planet. By all means add unconfirmed planets to the planetbox: I have no objections to this. On the other hand, planets for which no-one is claiming there is evidence for (such as Gliese 436 c), or have been actively disproven (such as the planet candidate in the lens system of MACHO-1997-BLG-41) do not deserve entry: surely the boxes should represent the current state of knowledge of the system, not be a catalogue of observational errors. 131.111.8.96 (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The retracted planet, c should not be mentioned in the planetbox. This is giving wrong information undue weight. This is not piltdown man, having survived decades in the scientific fora. The current in text description is sufficient for the purposes of providing information, while at the same not not misleading people to believe that there's an actual planet c, if they skimmed the article by infobox. 70.55.85.114 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gliese 436 c 

message: Now that the first attempt has been retracted, there's another proposal for a non-resonant planet at under (yes, under) 12 Earth masses. Since we got burned on the first attempt I suggest NOT creating a new page for this one until it is properly vetted.--Zimriel (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a very tentative hypothesis at present - unlike the first time round, no-one's claimed a period for the planet, just placed upper limits on the period and mass. For this reason, I've removed the planet from the orbitbox and turned the material about the second planet into its own subsection to clearly delineate the known and unconfirmed components of the system. Icalanise (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's baaaack... 

message: The only image currently in this article is of an object which is not currently thought to exist (the retracted candidate Gliese 436c). Surely we can get some pictures for the bits of the system that everyone agrees do exist - as it stands it makes it look like the most important thing about Gliese 436 is a non-existent planet! Icalanise (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in this article 

message: So now we got candidates, "UCF-1.01" and "UCF-1.02" --Zimriel (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take three 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gliese 436. 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%3A%2F%2Foutreach.atnf.csiro.au%2Feducation%2Fsenior%2Fastrophysics%2Fphotometry_colour.html to http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/photometry_colour.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) 00:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gliese 436. 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/20141223004957/http://voparis-exoplanet-new.obspm.fr/catalog/gj_436_b/ to http://voparis-exoplanet-new.obspm.fr/catalog/gj_436_b/
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) 09:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified